Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

He forgot 06:00.

06:00.

Alright. We're parking at home.

You're just

Oh, hello. Oh, you were looking at me. Yeah. Just

just started to be in the middle.

We're gonna we're gonna be called to order the city of Sherwood Planning Commission meeting for 11/25/2025. Do we need a roll call? We have Sure. Okay. Tyler Barnes is

K.

Commissioner Kai? Here. Commissioner Vance? Here. And then we have three staff members, Hugo, Art, and Eric.

What's that? I'm sure. Oh,

interesting. Oh, I'm I'm here. Alright. House are we doing housekeeping items? Sure.

Yeah. I think we well, I think now's an okay time. So first of all, I'm gonna pass around and start going around, roster and contact information. And, Tyler, I think we can get this from you, separately, but we just wanna make sure that we have everyone's correct address, phone number, email, that sort of thing. And along with that, just wanna make sure everyone has access to their email. Just make sure there's no access issues for everyone that's here. For anyone that's not here, we'll follow-up separately. So everyone have access to their Citi email account can get into it. All good. No issues. Great. Tyler, you're still good as well? Yep. Perfect. K.

Next one is packet preferences. So, you know, the the planning department is doing some, basically, some administrative and procedural updates. And so, you know, there's a possibility we're gonna move to fully electronic or land use applications with the exception of whether or not, you know, you guys would like paper packets. So, really, I just wanna go around and see what the preference is. And it's really if you prefer paper, no problem at all, and we'll get one from the applicant for final commission hearing. So why don't we start with commissioner Barnes Electronic for paper preference?

Paper free unless it's a plan set that requires, you know what, paper free. Paper free is fine.

K. If you change your mind, let us know. Great. Some notes here. Commissioner Kai.

Paper for you as well. K. Electronic. Pierce Simpson?

I want paper, but when there are large volumes of traffic studies, like water, soil, if I could get the white paper, executive summary, whatever they call it. And then if I want the full detail, I'll go online and get the rest of it. But just Yep. But the rest of the study the full thing.

K. You want the full TIA?

Usually. Usually. Yeah. Yeah. But not storm. Or Water, sewer, sanitary. Yep.

K. Cool.

So pretty much all the appendices, electronic, separate TIA, I guess?

No. Because I I want the the applicant submittal. Right. You know? Because they'll have the neighborhood meeting. Yeah.

Those I want stuff. It's really storm. Like, there's not a a huge pack typically for water, or it's really transportation. The TIA has a lot of appendices, and the storm port tends to have a lot of appendices.

Okay. Let's let's not do TIA either. And then if I want more detail, I'll ask for it. So

I'm in

the same

camp. Yep. Fakers. A lot of

times looking at screens all day. I like to physically look through some things sometimes.

But you know how well, and if you want the full stuff, it's not a problem.

You can get it. Oh,

it's good. Alright. It makes sense. But if it I mean, I can go electronic if you

need the admission. Alright. Yep. Cool. And we will follow-up with Joe and commissioner separately. So Cool. Thank you. Any just anything else housekeeping related? Just kinda communication, packets, anything like anything like that you guys have concerns or wanna touch base on?

Just real quick. Is there there is a Zoom link for this. Right? Because Joe is now trying to look for it. We didn't see it on his email. Send it to him. Get an email right now. Perfect.

Okay.

Do you so when we RSVP, I think do you take a take a checklist? Maybe we should get a checklist going so that people RSVP and then they're coming or not or gonna Zoom in.

Yeah. So when we do when we send the email with the agenda and the and the packet, we'll ask, you know, for an RSVP. And, typically, they'll say, you know, if if you are virtual, just like Tyler did, say virtual. Yeah.

But I would just say my my housekeeping for communication is to ask ask commissioners to please RSVP either in person, electronically, or no. Not at all so that, we can start our meetings timely and then know who we're waiting for. Yep. And if if you don't, you might get

a email or phone call or text from from me or or or Sean Monday or today. So just expect that.

Okay. For now, it'll be good.

Yeah. Cool. Do have something else? And then

Looks like Joe's Joe's coming on board. There he is. Alright. Greetings.

I am here.

Awesome. Thanks for joining us. Sorry, on any miscommunication, but I'm glad glad you're able to join. Do you we're just jumping we'll just jump right in with you. Do you have a preference on packets for whether you get electronic or paper?

Do do you mean generally, Eric? Or

Nope. This is like, what do you want? Because but, basically, we'll we'll deliver the but we're talking about planning commission packets. And, typically, like, for larger submittals specifically, if there's, like, a full you know, kinda like what you already got for the last hearing. Yeah. If you want if you prefer paper, and that way, we'll we'll absolutely deliver a paper packet each time. If not, we'll just send you an email with the link.

You know, when it is for, like, a judicial hearing, I like I do like paper because I take a lot of notes. I obviously turn them all in at the end. But

Yeah. Cool.

I do.

Great. And we're talking about, like, whether you wanted kind of the the full because there's some reports that are really lengthy. A stormwater report has a lot of appendices. We were happy to provide all that. It's not a problem. Jean Jean and Dan both didn't want that upfront, but they were gonna have maybe ask for it later. Do you wanna see all that initially, or do

you wanna follow Gene and and Dan? My my request was for the ex I put the executive summary, and then the appendices only upon request.

Yeah. You know, that is exactly what I would like is is what you just mentioned, that Jean and Dan do. I only really need the executive summary. And, you know, if it's a 100 plus pages, I don't like wasting my ink, so I'm just cheap.

Totally. And we'll print it for you, by the way, so no worries there. Great. Any issues with your email? You you get your city a access is all good?

Yep. It's all good. I just need to check it.

No. No worries. Perfect. Alright. I think we're I think we're good. Move on to number two. Alright. Alright.

On to the planning commission priorities for 2026.

Great. Okay. So People online have copies

of this document? Yes. So Okay. Yep. This was the we're just we have a paper copy here, but it's what the packet that was sent out, the memo plus the plus the one or two attachments.

So every year, the city council does council goal setting. That happens typically in January each year. As part of that, we're kind of fine tuning our process at the city level and city council level to get feedback from the boards commission. So kinda how it's been turning out over the last last two years is we have this this meeting first, kinda hear from the planning commission or all of the boards and commissions, frankly. And then on on in a December meeting, the chair, so in this case, Jean, will go to the planning commissioner, go to city council council, and and just kind of present very briefly, kind of present on what was discussed at this meeting, what you guys are hearing, what your preferences are, try to try and make it a a two as much of a two way street as possible between the the boards and commissions and the city council.

That discussion will take place. And then in January, the city council, also through a public meeting in here on a Saturday, they do their council goal setting. So that's why I facilitated with a consultant. But the conversation that happens in this December work session will kind of flow into that meeting. So they usually don't take up everything, of course.

There's usually too much for them to sort of give to to sort of, you know, give direction back to staff to take it on. But I think it's just really good that they're kind of aware if something doesn't make the list one year, maybe it makes the list, you know, the next year. So, really, the purpose tonight to prepare Jean to go into that meeting, but also just to kinda for staff to kinda give you guys a heads up of of what's likely gonna be coming in 2026. And this is kind of the you know, it's it's, I guess, unfortunately, sometimes not just what city council wants to work on. Sometimes, you know, staff, and in this case, we'll get into it in just a second, staff is saying, like, here's what we kinda have to do based on state laws, based on just anything else that we're seeing that we might not actually have a choice on.

So there's gonna be some of that as well. And And some of that, we're gonna kinda inform you guys going into and g present on that as well. So it's kind of all kinda taken together in a single package to city council. Any questions, comments before we basically, what I'm planning to do is just kinda go top to bottom and just kinda let you know, mainly, first, what is on staff's radar, and then we can get into the discussion about, like, anything you guys have been trained or any preferences that you guys have for work on. Any questions?

And I just wanna you got one. You got one. Perfect. You know, I want to I think we can get into these specific bills a little bit, but I I wanna caution us from getting into, like, really detailed discussions about, like, about these housing bills because the short story is we're gonna we're we're likely gonna get we're gonna get into them. And tonight is just kinda to give you guys a heads up of what's coming. So I think we I don't I just don't want us to get, sidetracked with kind of with all the bills and all the concerns and all that sort of stuff because I think we're all gonna have them because they're state mandates. I wanna stay focused on making sure we get to the second part of the conversation, which is hearing from you guys on other stuff.

So so just to ask a question. So on the state mandated stuff, you've got a work program drafted. And so my presentation was I say I would probably just do item one is the state mandated code updates. And I don't know how much other detail I would provide to counsel because they've been hearing a lot about it, and they've got their charter amendments. So

Right. Right. Yeah. I think

I think that's fair. I mean, I think we've been doing it just like this report. They're the kind of the presentation that we included. We've been having the conversations with city council. So, yeah, they're gonna be aware.

Yes. So it's not gonna so I was gonna focus more on the non Exactly.

I think that's smart. I think we still wanna just kinda capture the state mandates as part of the keep it in mind for workload and you're gonna get all of our capacity and council's capacity as it makes its way to the but, you know, I don't expect you to get into details and explain these things or anything like that. I think it's a pretty pretty brief kinda statement of there are numerous house bills and senate bills that we need to comply within the coming year and even some of these are multiple year projects.

So these are obviously very time consuming, though, if we have

to implement them.

Yeah. But I'm curious, the charter thing we just talked about that's coming out of the home rule stuff, how much would that impact work on all this?

Like, how often? I don't know.

Do you think? Or

I don't know. And what I'd recommend is, like, because that that well so the vote is gonna take place on the thirteenth, and then the the city council goal setting is gonna take place on the twenty fourth. And so I think for the clip, this work session is next week. So I think the right thing for now would be to assume that everything's on on on the radar on the plate and then kinda see how With some backups. How how January goes, basically.

Yeah. K. Please do. Thanks. So the first thing is what, we're calling a cleared objective code audit, and the really short of it is that we do need to to make sure that our code related to residential developments, applications, this clear objective when it comes to multifamily structures and when it comes to fixed use structures, and finally, when it comes to the tree code.

We did a a pretty comprehensive middle housing and single family design standard update with HB 2,001. Joy led that a few years ago. At that time, the clear and objective law was in place. And so part of the code for those housing types, clear and objective. No worries. The multifamily mixed use entry code is older, and so we need to we need to bring that up. We need to audit and bring that up. And, really, the goal there is to make our code as enforceable as possible. We don't wanna be throwing anything out during design review line review.

So single family is current? Single family is current.

Middle house is current. Multifamily mixed use is it predates that. And then there's a there's the tree the tree code is also one that has to be clear and objective.

In residential?

For residential developments. Yes. Right now, the case law is that the other development features, if you will, road road standards, landscaping standards, outside of trees, those types of things do not need to be clear and objective. So we just need to focus on the structure of the house, of the home, of the multifamily structure or the mixed use structure and the trees. That needs to be clear and objective.

And do any of the new senate bills or house bills impact the single family work that we've done already? Yes. Because I was so so just I wanted to throw it out there because it it the conversation, it sounded like we were done with single family, but we're not. We're gonna have to revisit single family as it relates to

I apologize. Let me clarify with that clarification. SB nine seven four essentially throws out our single family design standards. Mhmm. It does not necessarily, require a code update, though. It just simply simply tosses them. So that is when I said, yes, it would impact. Yes. There is an impact, but not in terms of the mandatory code update. And so let me just maybe speak to I can clarify this a little bit more.

So moving on to number two, state state mandated housing code updates. There's one, two, three, three, four of these here. I can briefly go over which each of these is, but at a very high level, what I'd say is these are coming from 2024 and 2025. They are, very different in nature. Some of them have rulemaking that needs to happen from the States.

Some of it doesn't. Some of it may make sense to be a direct application. Some of it may make sense that we wanna do a code update. And so I've just had a very high level. The the planning department is gonna is gonna develop a strategy for us to and sort of advise you guys on, hey. It probably doesn't make sense to do a code update here. It's probably you know, because some of these sunset in seven years, for example. So we say, look. We just need to do a direct application when that type of application comes in. And in seven years, it expires, no code update.

But we'll kinda give alternatives to you for the best path forward for sure with for each of these. Some of these are gonna be straight up code updates, and so we may need to, you know, modify the code to come into conformance with the code. So it's if they're gonna be kind of across the board in terms of the correct approach to any type of legislative action or no action.

So when I go to the council, what I would like to ask is a scheduled work session with them after the election to get clear direction on how we are to proceed based on the election results. We don't know what the results are gonna be. And their answers, you know, if if the vote goes one way, no action. If vote goes another way, there's gonna be actionable items as it relates to our alignment or misalignment with the state and how we would further, that. You know?

Do we put in our code? This is our code, you know, subject to this being repealed or something like that. Because, that was my other comment was, you know, putting we did this on previous code language, which was, when we added it to the code section, we said per ORS, the following section is being applied subject to repeal or something like that so that we could easily pull it out of the code if it was so that that would be my request is that once the election's done that we have a a joint work session with counsel to get get their direction on how how we feel proceed.

Right. And I think I I don't I wanna be careful not to get too much into the into the charter amendment into the election. It's just Right. Just wanna be cautious there. But just a a quick clarification. The charter amendment is specific to annexations, which is kind of a it's a separate from separate from kind of what's on on this list right now. So put that aside for a second. The other charter amendment is really around process, is the main is the main amendment. It's not around design standards, for example. And so some of the some of these is if they're around design standards, right, the charter amendment's not gonna impact that.

It's only gonna affect annexations and process potentially. Meaning pub public hearing, yes or no, how much public notice, 100 feet, thousand feet, that type of process. So just there's gonna be some sort of parameters on what the charter amendment can actually influence.

But it'll be part of our code cleanup process. Correct?

Yes. We would take that into we would take the it into the approach strategy for addressing all these bills. Correct? Mhmm. And then there's just kind of other these are a little bit older.

That's why I put them under things called limited land use decisions, expedited land divisions, middle housing land divisions. And then one thing we didn't put is, Peter, and I think it'd actually be appropriate for a discussion here to see if it's something you guys are open. Appeal notice procedures. You know, right now, on an appeal, the code says that we have to follow the same public notice as the initial hearing. And so it it can be quite burdensome, actually, from a staff perspective. So, you know, typically, it's, you know, we basically need thirty five about thirty five days ahead of the public. We have to

get a notice out to

the newsmaker approximately thirty five to forty days. When you do that twice, that's seventy to eighty days of lead time for just for public noticing if there's an appeal, and that cuts so, you know, that's half the hundred and twenty days or more. And so what staff would propose up up to you guys and city council is to not make the appeal procedures quite as robust. And what I would say, like, we wanna be careful of public participation and things like that, but appeals can only be, you know, applied for by someone who participated in the original hearing. And so it's so, like, they're already paid attention, and and we will do a direct mail to them.

The notice of decision is direct mail to them. And then the notice is sort of second of, hey. We got an appeal, and this is happening. And so we we just don't see the need for to follow the same procedures twice. Frankly, it's going to I think it's strategic in terms of how we approach land use applications. This is gonna give you guys and us more time upfront to make that initial decision. So we're not gonna be quite as squeezed when you guys say, hey. How much time do we have for a continuance? We're gonna be able to say more often or or for more amount of time. Yeah, we have this amount of time left before you guys have to make that decision so that we can plan for the appeal.

So it's gonna give you guys as the initial decision maker more room to make that initial decision. So throw that out there. Any any early comments on that?

So how would that work? That would if there were an appeal, the only people who would be noticed then were those who participated initially?

Only person that could appeal.

Or so Okay. Guys make the decision. And then once you guys make the decision, staff will mail or email or both everyone who participated in the hearing. Everybody, including the applicants will say this planning commission made this decision. They then have two weeks to appeal. So let's say one of them actually does appeal. What we're talking about is the next step of the appeal notice to the general public, and that's what we wanna short and not necessarily send to the newspaper, for example.

So what would that shorten to then?

You know, it would maybe be, like, a direct mail again to all of the people that participated plus another notice within a thousand feet of the site. Really, it's the newspaper notice that really that really becomes an issue because they can leave the post on certain days. They wanted to leave early. It just it just, like, it just it just really

So it's just It just be taking the newspaper portion Potentially. Out of it that then just gives us

So we we can still do, a thousand foot mailing. We still notice all the people that participated in the original hearing, whether or not they appealed. We still do website. We still do city hall, all that sort of stuff. It's just the it's the tiger time specifically that we It should unlock the outside door at 07:00 if other people are gonna be coming for me. You can block it. Thank you. Appreciate it. Yeah. So

is it right now that you can only peel if you were on the record?

Yes. Okay. Yeah. And including the applicant.

Right. So that we're not limiting anything that we're already doing. We're just shortening the time frame. I think that's good because then we could have more two more weeks on a hearing if we only have Yep. And that's why we wanna do it.

Yeah. We don't wanna squeeze you guys because we really are like if Oh, oh, man. Hugo and then Art and I are all inside. You know, how do we just go boom boom boom? And then it's like there's room for maybe one more. We try and land that one, that's it. So we wanna give you guys a little bit upfront. Yeah.

So, Eric?

I like it. Yeah.

Did you say at the very beginning of this, or, you know, two minutes ago when you started talking about this particular topic that the appeals process today is codified? In other words, you you must follow a certain process that includes a two link

You're breaking up a lot. Just a second.

Go again, Joe. It's us. It's us. It's not you. Go again.

Okay. Can you hear me well now?

Yeah. Go ahead.

Okay. So what I was asking is the current process, which you were obviously describing as you would like to effectively shorten it or be able to shorten it by eliminating the newspaper notification. Is that currently codified and you must follow that? So what you're proposing is to change that process in writing so that you can now follow the city can now follow a a process that is hopefully, you know, shortened and provides more time flexibility. Does that make sense?

I think, yeah, you were breaking up a little bit more, but it is codified now. Everything's in the code. And it basically says we have to do the newspaper notice once for the initial hearing. And then if we get an appeal, we do it again for the appeal hearing. And so we'll be removing the code requirement to do it for the second hearing, so we would be updating the code.

Okay. What kind of an approval would be needed then?

That's a legislative approval. So it would go to city council, and they would have to update the code through legislative. And that's why that's why we've included it in here is if we're taking a package, sort of a larger housing package to city council, it makes sense to throw this in there and just do it instead of instead of doing a big lift just for this one.

Okay. I understand now. Thanks.

Yep. Thanks. Alright. And then moving on to long range planning, what we what staff is picking up on for 2026 is to begin the Sherwood West comprehensive planning. So just a quick update on the appeal.

We we've not given this before, but I'll just restate it. We have won each of the appeals that have that have challenged Sherwood West in the metro decision. The last challenge was at the Land Conservation and Development Commission, LCTC, as a state board, basically, the state equivalent planning commission, actually, or equivalent at the state level. So they upheld the, metro decision to expand the boundary. We have not seen the findings, the final order from that commission, but we expect that to be issued any any day now.

And then we do expect that order to be appealed to the court of appeals. And so that that will happen pretty quick once it happens. Frankly, you know, we we don't have a lot of concerns. You know, we continue to win the appeals. We think the decision is solid from a legal standpoint and from a planning standpoint, so I think we'll continue to win these, but we gotta get through that process. With that said, it will be up to the city council whether we move forward with comprehensive planning while that appeal is in is in progress or not. I I don't know exactly where they're gonna land, but, you know, we're all internally in planning department. We're already gearing up for that. So we're looking at the scope of work for the comp plan update. We

are

you know, we need we need an IGA with Metro. So we're kind of putting together the framework for all of that. So once we get the green light from cancel, we're we're moving. But I I do think it's fair to say that at some point in 2026, we will kick off Comprehensive Plan for short request. I I don't expect these appeals to last through the entire 2026. I could be wrong. It could be really you know, it could be really long. But based on my understanding right now, it's gonna it's not gonna last the whole year, and we shouldn't launch Comprehensive Plan in 2026.

Before we go on, I wanna be respectable to commissioner Barnes' to leave at 06:45. So give you if is there anything not already on the list that was presented by Eric that you think should be we should ask city council to put on our work program? It's kinda

Everything everything that was mentioned so far is on track, and I'll continue to stay on until the door gets broken down.

Okay. Do do you have anything that's, like, really top of mind,

Vernon, that you wanted to just mention?

Yeah. I think that there was you know, with all the construction going on on Murdoch, there's been some chances and or potential improvements related to best management practices, lot of track out and some debris on the roadway. I think we need to kind of an I know it's a a nuisance and more so an inspection or a call out to the city, but, I'd like to see some more heavy handed, at least, requirements for silt fencing and construction BMPs along roadways that are thoroughfares because we got big rocks that are getting left on the road. And, I see those as being, one, a hazard, but, two, also, you know, just poor form. And then, that's pretty much my my main burning desire.

The tree code, that's gonna be great. I would also like to see some additional codification of preconstruction and postconstruction compliance requirements.

Can you share more about that last one?

Postconstruction? Like, basically

Oh, pre pre I think you said pre and post. Right? I'm not not totally familiar with that.

Preconstruction requirements, you know, time of year. We've talked about these before. They're they're standard BMPs for nesting birds, things like that. Just the biosweep, culture, you know, things that we don't really find or have. It's not being more onerous. It's just trying to make sure that we are doing our due diligence prior to. And so the post construction reporting is basically a wrap up to the city saying, and maybe they do, but we haven't seen it. But a, yes, we complied with the conditions. Here it is. You know, these are standard mitigation monitoring check off items.

But sometimes there's a a report that says, here's how we complied with these. You know, like a white paper that says, we've done our things, and and here we're good to go.

Good. Okay. Great. Thank you. I, just really quickly, you know, the on the the Murdoch area and silt fencing BMP, best best management practices for that. I we'll look into it. I think that the the code is probably solid there, and it's probably Mhmm. It's probably a matter of enforcement on that one.

That's really good.

We can I guess that's my comment there? And then, on tree code, I did wanna clarify. This is an important clarification, with if we go back to the clear and objective code audit for multifamily mixed use and for the tree code. And I've welcomed a discussion on this. The the way that that, seeing it right now, we we have an we have a tree code.

We have design standards for multifamily structures, mixed use structures. There's a a possibility that those are not clear and objective. And when we do code updates, a lot of concern about, like, just the project growing and growing and growing and the scope and scope creep and all that sort of stuff. So I should clarify that what what I what staff had in mind for both of those was taking the the current code. You know, what do multi families need multi family structures need to look like?

What trees need to be retained? To the extent that those are not clear and objective or ambiguous, translate that from subjective to objective. It's it's it would not be the scope would not be rehashing sort of what what multifamily structures need to look like in Sherwood and how tall they should be. It's the code is there. And and that, you know, what what development should look like and how tall it should be and all that sort of stuff is there.

It just may not be clear and objective. So for example, the code right now says, multifamily structure shall have significant articulation. Maybe clear and objective, maybe not. I don't wanna get into it. What basically, the code is there to say multifamily structure should have significant articulation. Right? That that's the objective of the code. We need to take that and and clarify what that actually means. What we don't wanna do is rehash. Well, maybe we like really modern stuff, and we don't want the articulation.

Like, that that's what I don't wanna get into because I think that's a much bigger we kinda need the green light from city council to be like, we need to rehash urban form in Sherwood, and that's not the exercise here. The exercise is take a potentially subjective code standard and translate it into a clear objective code without rehashing everything about what should what architectural styles we should be, you know, improving at Sherwood. Does that make sense?

So what would be an example of how you would turn that particular one into an objective standard? Because, I mean, if you're defining a term, that's exactly what you're doing is getting a design standards.

Yes. But I maybe maybe a better so well, let me answer that question, and, Art, and Hugo, please jump in here as well. Every every 20 feet of of building face shall have an offset of three feet, minimum of three feet. And so for every 20 feet, if you got 80 feet of frontage, you end up four sort of offset somewhere. Or all street facing elevations shall have blank blank blank in it, and that gets to the articulation standard.

What we don't wanna do is old town because we have an old town plan, the old town plan, and we'll present this to you. It's basically, you know, saying we like you know, brick is the priority, things like that. What we don't wanna get into is a discussion of, well, maybe we don't like brick anymore. Maybe we like what we would. Like, that's we don't wanna get into that type of discussion, if that makes sense. Potentially, if city council wants to do that, but that's a much bigger, much broader that's a cons that's a architect consultant, all that sort of stuff. You know, what we're looking at here is taking, code standards that are on the books and translating them to objectives so we can enforce them firmly when we get development.

And is your intention because we're doing a translation to have a limited scope open like, a single open house or just go straight to public hearing? Yes. Work session then public hearing. But I think if we were so two things. If we're changing the code and saying we don't want brick, we want wood, we'd do a full reach out and say what's important in in this.

But if we're going from significant means every 20 feet articulation, then, work session, open house slash open house type thing where we have a work session and then missionaries stay afterwards and do a meet greet with anybody from the public that wants to come up and talk and then right into a work, hearing type thing.

Yeah. I mean, I I just to be very open, I I do think that the more we get into engagement, the more it opens the door for that those types of kind of, that type of creep. Right? Because you're probably gonna get people that say, well, I don't I want us to go English tutor because we're sure would you know, we might get that, and then we're just going in a different direction. So I think there should be some amount of engagement to let the public know, developers, property owners, kind of what the new you know, what's happening, what the new rules will be. I But think it's gonna be much more limited than a typical code update. That's where I was

that's where I was going with the have a work session where we get presented the information and then, followed up by a meet and greet afterwards just to Yeah.

Yeah. I think there's ways that we can kinda inform the public without totally shoving them out, but also kind of making it clear that this is not a rehash of what Sherwood design should be over the next fifty years.

So what we're doing is a translation from subjective to objective. Yes. That's the phrase that I'm gonna Yep. Hang my hat on.

Yep. Perfect. And on the tree on the tree code sorry. I was

just thinking, by definition, subjective is not objective. Right? So, I mean, you're gonna have to create something specific out

of something that isn't. Yes. Yes.

So I I totally understand why you're trying and this is a lot of stuff for a year, especially with limited staff and all that. I I get the the heart behind it, so to speak. I'm just Mhmm. I'm just a little skeptical how that's gonna go.

Thank you. Gonna watch it. Thank you for making that point because I I think there there is going to be there is going to have to the translation is going to result in something about what these buildings should look like, and it's probably gonna be more detailed. And there's you know, and it's and hopefully clear objective. And so I think we are gonna get into design a bit. Right? And people might have different opinions. And I think that's okay. Right? I think to the extent we need to discuss that translation, the outcome, I think that's good, and that's that's warranted.

So I have to give the specifics when we get there.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

But I but I really do. I I I hear what you're saying as well, that it's it's not just gonna be cut and dry and Yep. Cut and paste into objective, that there's gonna have to be some discretion used by everyone for the purpose.

Because as soon as you said, our three foot articulation every 20 feet on it, ugh.

Totally. Totally. And it

you know? And it's like, ugh.

Just pump everything through AI. I'm sure it'll be fine.

Hey, Eric.

Alright.

But I to go I'll just go back to the example of, like it's things like style. Right? Because, like, Old Town, the code is very clearly written, and it's very explicit in the code. Early American. You know? And and it's not frankly, it's not English. Right? So we've already kind of had that that has already been hashed out. It got hashed out, like, fifteen years ago. That's what I don't wanna open up. But to the extent that we need to kinda go round on what is articulation, absolutely, we're gonna have to get into that. And, you know, we have great between Sean, Hugo, Art Art, and myself to a certain degree, I think we can get it done without a consultant. You guys have great experience as well.

So Yeah.

And Hey, Eric.

So yeah. Go ahead, Joe. Sorry.

I was

gonna jump to

two. Like, the the code

I don't think anybody's

hearing you.

Some places kind of used to try to create a launch pad.

You're on mute,

Joe.

And so it say, like, articulation, for instance, and it would kind of give some examples. Okay? But it was it was trying They aren't hearing us. Explain I

don't think

they are.

This is the direction we can go.

So it wasn't

you know, it it wasn't a choose this. Yeah. It wasn't prescriptive. I think, you know, maybe something is that it it becomes more prescriptive, like, here's

You hear us now?

Toolbox or something like that.

I've got Tyler and Joe. Two people, Google, can't talk.

Can you hear

us? Tyler's got a raised hand,

and Joe's I don't think you're hearing us.

Are you

You can't hear us.

Hear you. They can't hear us.

Oh. No. We can hear you.

We can hear you

fine. Hear you. We can hear you.

Now can you hear us? Now can you hear Now Now

can can you Now we can hear you. We've always been able to hear you.

Did you you I hear a whisper. Yeah. I hear whispers.

You can't hear us.

Oh, there we you now. We got you.

There we go.

We got you on

You better?

Yeah. We can we can hear you.

Okay. Okay. Hear us before. Alright. Joe, you're first, then I'm second.

Is is

really Okay. Rattling.

And distorted.

It's really distorted. Just a moment.

Can you hear us now? Can you hear us now? Can you hear us now?

There you go. It's a little better. Yeah. Great.

Verizon commercial. Okay.

So the the the main point that I I wanted to make just based on everything we've just said is

Hold on. Hold on, Joe.

Joe, I'm sorry. We're gonna

do something on his phone here.

Down there. You just could put him on speaker there? You know, the the we still have to do it through there.

Well, if you put if you put them on speaker and put it next to that, it'll be

a report on it. Oh,

but you're you have to do this. You have to do this because

of feedback. They're gonna hear us through both. That's the problem.

Yep. Yep. It's it's it's just a

little finicky. You kinda have to get it. It's like, it's related. It's just kinda how the whole thing comes through. Let me turn this way out and

see if that helps. Oh, jeez. Okay. I mean

Is it better now?

Yeah. Yeah. That's better. You're just gonna be really loud. That's okay. Go ahead. That's okay. Go ahead again. Go ahead, Joe.

Okay. I'll I'll make it very quick. What I'm picturing based on everything we just discussed is we for example, I will just mention the tree code. We will not be reading the tree code. We will be looking at a diff or a difference of those specific sections that the staff deemed to be subjective and how they are now reworded to be objective. Does that sound correct?

Yeah. And let me thank you for asking about tree code. I think it's a good trainer. It's still clear now, Joe. Yeah. We we got it sorted out. So I I do think that the tree code is one that could be more open, that that could be rehashed more fully. And I think my concern there is simply just workload if, to be honest with you, it's workload. And, the the planners kinda have a joke. You guys been or just there's two things we never like to do, tree code and sign code.

And tree code, the just because they're notorious for, like, being complex, sign code because of First Amendment rights, and tree code because it's very, you know, emotional for people, and people have a lot of feelings and and that type of thing. And and that but but maybe that's the reason to do it as well. So I I think we could potentially get more into tree code. I think as a baseline, it's gonna be exactly what you said, Joe. I think that's the basis that we have to translate subjective to objective.

Not the entire tree code is subjective. There is significant portions. I'd say most of the tree code is cleared objective, actually, but there are portions of the tree code that are not. For example, there's language in there that talks about, like, large stature trees, but and I might be making stuff up a little bit here, but it doesn't really define what large stature is or significant trees. Kinda the same thing. So there are certain parts that we need to translate.

Yeah. Yeah.

I'm gonna go ahead, Tyler.

No. Was gonna add to that. That's exact so I added in chat too. The tree code is update to include replacement ratios specific based on DBH for street trees and residential trees, whether that's gonna be an on-site replacement because it just says, you know, draft replacement plan, that's good for five years. But it it needs to have more specified, implementation requirements and performance criteria listed in the code.

So the the protection or the removal and replacement plan shall include x, y, and z at a minimum, and the x, y, and z should be codified as, you know, performance criteria, how long are these trees gonna make sure they have a survivability of x number of years. It has to have x number of cover crops to match the percent removed or at a three to one ratio for if you're not replacing it on-site or within the area, then if you're gonna go to an off-site location to replace us because, I mean, we are a tree city. Right? So we are we need to have almost like a no net loss situation here. So

Yep. Yeah.

Things like that.

Yeah. Thank you, commissioner Barnes. And I think my and maybe I I actually welcome your feedback, commissioner Barnes, on this. I I just wonder if a consultant is needed to do, like, a really high quality, robust tree code update and make planners as absolutely have some skill set and experience in trees, but, you know, we're not certified arborist, for example. We're not art is art is a landscape architect.

But I I guess that's where, like, you know, budget is gonna be fairly constrained over the next few years. And so that's where I that's where, like, I set the at first, sure, we need to do the translation, but then I just wonder, like, are we gonna get in over our head a little bit with a sort of really kinda detailed robust tree? Do you have any thoughts on kinda what type of professional it takes to do that type of code?

I just wrote the code for a city in California. There's it just requires a certified arborist or, like a consultant, like you said, to understand. And the code as we have it is correct in a lot of aspects. It's understanding how compliance and implementation need to be codified. It it's not necessarily just saying, hey.

We have this type of tree. It's actually explaining why that tree is considered a protected tree or a heritage tree or something of that nature to make sure that the definitions are as explicit as they can be. And then following through with, okay, if you are replacing this type of tree, here's the next step that you have to follow, which is, you know, what is the DBH? What's the replacement value? What's the replacement ratio if it's on-site versus off-site?

Is there one? Are there habitat trees versus protected trees? So this is good, you know, segue to an another conversation, but at a minimum, I would say, yes. An arborist or a consulting firm should be able to and would be able to provide insight on ways to improve it. We could also just look at other local communities in Tigard and Portland and see what fits and and what can be How

about how about Lake Oswego? Have you can we get a copy of, like, Lake Oswego's tree code and

see It's online. It's all online. Yeah.

I would say, can we get that in Tyler's hand?

Oh, yeah. Yeah. I can download. I'm looking at Archery code right now, and that's why it it's easy enough to coordinate. But for the main reason and rationale behind it is to give a developer peace of mind when they know what they're getting into as opposed to a slippery slope with, I'm just gonna cut down these, you know, these 60 trees over here, and I got my permit to do it. Therefore, we're good. Whereas it should be, I understand what I'm getting into. Here's what my replacement ratio is, and here's what I have to do with it. And here, I need to have a plan that specifies this is the type of tree that's coming out. This is the type of tree that's going in.

Here's where they're gonna go in, and here's how we're gonna ensure that they're gonna survive to maintain that tree city standard.

Thank you. I'm just can I just add? Like, so I know we all serve here at the pleasure of council. Right? And that's part of what you're

doing is you're going back

to council for your priorities and there's limited time and everything. I just would I think I would, I think it behooves us to make sure this is really discussed with council, though, because this this item has been talked about for years, and it's desired by the community for us to deal with. So kind of lumping it in with sort of just these other oh, we just gotta make some things objective. And I know we've heard about tree code for years wanting to do but we're just gonna we'll just kinda lump it in with that, and then we can call it done. I think we probably need to get council's buy in at least on that or get that deeper dive, but I realize that takes time and and money. Yeah.

Yeah. And the other thing I would propose, and I don't know if it would be good or bad, is we have a perks board that has some, other skills that might also be a joint work session with them to help make sure that we're thinking about certain aspects. Tyler brings so much to the table when with what he's got. And if we I mean, I'm not afraid to copy, like, Oswego's code if it works and it's going to be if it already meets the cleared objective standards and just modify it, put the Sherwood twist on it. But that's one of the benefits of having this work session with all the commissioner board chairs with the city council is when, you know, the arts board was when arts was talking.

Parks said, hey. And then there were connections made throughout the room with other people. So if if we're throwing out tree code, I'd wanna make sure the parks was part of the conversation.

K. And I think, I appreciate you saying that. I would just I just my 2¢ would be, like, planning commission, city council would really be the key driver because of the development code. But to the extent that they, you know, have have its sites, absolutely. I did wanna clarify on the council goals, so I did include the '25, '26, Sherwood City Council goals in the packet as well.

This isn't but there's there interestingly, it's actually even more detailed than what I provided you guys. So these are kind of the bigger picture goals, and then there's specific deliverables under under each of these goals. So on the last page attached the very last page of the packet, under livability pillar three, evaluate opportunities to promote environmental initiatives that are achievable and impactful. One of the sub deliverables of that is to weigh basically, the paraphrasing here, it might get a little bit wrong, weigh the cost benefit weigh the cost benefit analysis of a of a tree code update or consider a tree code update. It's not really strong language that the council put in of, like, you know, do it and do it by this time, but it's, like, basically, explore explore a tree code, the the a tree code update and kind of what we're talking about scope and that type of thing.

So it's already it's on the list. I think for for me as a staff member, what I'm saying is we're gonna have to straight up throw out some of that with what we already have, and that's where I get to we need to do this ASAP when that shouldn't preclude a bigger picture conversation. So, yeah, I think I think in this one could be could be a priority for council, but but I'm not sure. There there are other things.

Eric, question. If if, for example, there's a strike through underlying version of Sherwood's code that's provided to staff, can that be brought up as, like, hey. These are some ideas, or is it city council and staff has to develop it on their own outside of unless there's a contract with a consultant, for example. How does that work if if it's, like, citizen advisory versus Yeah. Here's an idea.

Yeah. That's a great question. I think I think the the role of city council would be to kinda give the green light to the city manager, to myself as the as the director, to to spend the time to work on this. That's the that's the big green light that we need, big picture. How we then achieve the the outcome, I think, what you what you described it could be appropriate.

You know? But but, you know, if you if, for example, someone delivered something to us, we we need the green light to even kinda spend time going through it and all that stuff. So that's what we'd be looking for, and I think council would probably be more open to and and kinda leave it up to us as staff, planning commission, others in in terms of how we get there.

Because if they say the budget for tree code is getting compliance with clear and objective, spend little, then we have a light green light. But if they say, no. We want a more robust, then we have a full green light to do something bigger and then Right. Entertain whatever

of course, if we

want, we could accomplish.

Yes. And doesn't always happen perfectly, but, typically, how this should work is we get a council goal. Staff develops budget, basically, gives council goals. That budget gets funded, then we'll move it. So that's how it should work.

How much would it cost if under our precode, it just simply said reference Lake Oswego tree check?

One of the unknowns is Yeah. No comment.

Still gotta do the legislative hearing process. Which is thousands of dollars.

Right? One of the unknowns is how many applications were developed. We're gonna get it as well. Right? I mean, fewer of those means more time for you guys as well, I would think.

Right. So yeah. Alright. Final kinda items that I wanna hear from you guys, really open ended. We are gonna wrap up the old town strategic plan, so we'll bring that to you in the work session. So just a heads up, I am we are planning to be sent for work session to do to talk about the old town strategic plan. Just kind of really informal. Here's the plan. Discuss it, and then we'll bring it to for a public hearing January is the plan, and then it'll go to city council in February.

So the actual items from the strategic plan, from what I've seen, are for council related Yep. Versus there might be some code changes, but that seems to be a little further down the line. Is that Yeah. I'm just asking for a presentation on Tuesday night. I'm not thinking that Old Town strategic action plan is one of the top three things the commission's looking at. We'll look I guess we'll discuss that afterwards. But

I I think it's high on the list. I think it's high on the list because it's been

Change the code?

To or planning commission to participate in any of the actions that you got that you would have a role in. And it could be, more broad than just a code update. It could be it could be kinda longer, I'd say, maybe medium term planning studies. So, for example, this this whole connection into the connection into Oregon Street, You know, there there might be kinda, like, transportation feasibility studies that are not code updates. It's that's consultant driven for sure.

It's an engineer civil engineer driven project, but we might do a work session. Well, you know, one work session with you guys and then take it to council and talk about alternatives. So that could be an example of something you guys would work on in terms of implementation. Okay.

What about our work programs for TSP, water, sewer, stormwater? Are those I thought those plans were coming through this year. Yeah. So transportation system plan for sure. And do you guys I don't

think you've heard on the TSP.

Have you guys done a work session or anything? We haven't done anything. We had one liaison. I don't remember who.

Me. I'm working on the transportation or the transportation advisory committee. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Yeah. We had a meeting last week.

Okay. Cool. So so that's moving forward.

Thank you. Thank you for saying that because it wasn't on my list. So the the TSP update is being led by the engineering department, so it's kinda out. So I'm kinda I haven't had it really on my mind. So thank you for bringing it up.

But I I think it's let me touch base with Joy, who's the who's leading that project on behalf of engineering and kinda figure out before we get into Tuesday, kinda figure out, you know, what role and how much prep you guys are gonna have to do. And I really you know, the the those other master plans, storm, sewer, water, those tend to be pretty consultant heavy projects, not not a huge role because they're so technical. So I think it's that though the role of planning commissioner is gonna be fairly limited. Not sure if there would even be a work session. It's very technical.

Just what you guys have already done is develop the comp plan, develop the zoning map, done Sherwood West con concept plan. All they're doing is taking those land uses and translating them into infrastructure needs. So there there should be a whole whole lot for you guys. Water sewer sewer storm. TSP is different. Correct. Yeah. Okay. Yep. But thank you for mentioning that. Yeah. Okay. Cool.

So the master plan for TSP is on the potential on those?

Yes. Or Yes.

Or likely.

Alright. Let me touch base with Joy about the the, public engagement plan and where you guys fit into that because I'm not sure. Okay. And then the but, you know, yeah, old country plan, I think, is priority. You know, that's one that city council last year said definitely a priority. Here's the money for it. So that's why I think it's probably likely gonna be carried over as a priority as well. And then the last one is the Oregon housing needs analysis or the how the first one is a house capacity analysis. Oh, boy. This is a big one.

This is a multiyear project. We have a deadline to comply. Our current deadline, is the 2027. We do have a grant from the state for this. We we are awarded a $100,000 the state to to hire a consultant. Planning staff is definitely able to work on it as well. But this is this is a big lift. It's basically the new equivalent of our housing needs analysis. So, Dan, you worked on the economic opportunities analysis. Jean and others have probably worked on the housing needs analysis.

Basically that. The state has adopted, new rules for cities and sort of redone a done a complete completely new framework for housing needs analysis in Oregon, and cities need to comply again. So that that's gonna be a big lift, and that's needs to happen by the 2027. So we're gonna kick that off pretty hot in 2026. Why do I feel like this is not good?

You know, the the there there is a lot, that that sure would, given our preferences for, sort of choosing our our future and what we look like and our form and things like that, there is gonna be quite a bit in here where it could frustrate us. Yep. Sure. Yep.

Wow. That is the most political way I have ever heard of you. Most politically correct way to say that things are coming down the pipe that we're going to have to Yes.

And I will say that, you know, Sherwood is currently Sherwood is currently providing testimony on this. And and the may like, I've written it. The mayor signed it. We've submitted it. It's about, like, sort of how this is all gonna play out, the rulemaking, and the exact regulations under which we're gonna have to comply. All that's being established right now, and we're not happy, and we're providing testimony. And I though, I'll add it's on public record. I'll add that our senator sen senator senate rep at the Oregon legislator and our house rep at the Oregon legislator have also provided this testimony to to the state on this on this specifically.

Thank you for doing that.

Yeah. In line with our position? Or Okay. Yes.

That

was a good point to clarify. In

line with what were doing. That's all my my stuff. Thank you. I'd love to hear from you guys. What's on your mind?

What do

you guys wanna work on? What's not on here?

This well, I have actually just a quick clarifying question. Sherwood West comprehensive plan. So city has, of course, a comprehensive master plan. We update it periodically. I think it goes through 2024 or 2040. Excuse me. 2040. Yeah. How often do we update that? And would this then just integrate into that, or should we just do a whole new comprehensive plan including Short West? Or how

does that So it's a great one. Yeah. I think it's gonna be kind of two things. I would see it partly as a sub element, sort of like a sub area plan of the comprehensive plan. Right? And we do have that right now. We have the Brookman edition, and that is adopted into the comprehensive plan. And so this would be the Sherwood West concept plan that gets adopted as part of the comprehensive plan. So in some ways, it's gonna be a stand alone plan. In other ways, it might make sense to say, you know what?

We need to do a wetland inventory is part of is is bread and butter of a comprehensive plan, and maybe it makes sense to kinda do the whole thing at once. Now we're hiring a consultant. Sherwood West is a big area. We haven't done wetlands inventory in the city limits in thirty years. We might as well and so some some things kind of might be blended, and so it's not gonna be it's not gonna be necessarily always cut dry kind of what what like, what's applying to what, but it but gonna be a little bit of both. But for the most part, I would see this more or less mostly as a standalone plan that gets adopted into the costs. And as we mark

renewal rates of plan when it's next.

Typically, you update them, every five to ten years. You know, not a full redo, but a relook, you can call it.

Yeah. Five to 10. Unless the state just gives us a comprehensive plan.

There you go. I just want to clarify comment on the one of those things that says, code of state senate bill nine seventy four is due by 2026, and house bill twenty one thirty eight is due by 2029. Is that true? Yeah. Right at 2027.

No. So okay. And that's what I saying. It's like some of these are are quite like, some of them are much meatier, if you will, than others. And And some of them are gonna go through a year or more of rule making at the state level, and then there there's gonna be a deadline for compliance by local local jurisdictions.

That's '15 to 2029.

I'll put a personal.

Alright. Are we all? Backwards in time for me. Okay. So just a poll of all the commissioners. What's the top two things? If I only get to say three things, what are your top two, mister Manson?

The other things to look at next year.

That that we would like to advocate for that the city

You're talking outside of this. Right?

Nope. Just any either inside or outside that you would like me to take to counsel to say these are what we feel our work program should include in addition to our regular hearings process.

I I actually don't think I have much else beyond what's on this plan. I think it's already a tremendous amount of work and much of it's highly needed. I definitely think Trico needs to look at it. Okay. One of my big ones. But, I mean, a lot of stuff here is necessary. Mhmm. How we although we can stack on much else.

We can't stack on anything else, but if we couldn't do them all, we do tree code.

Can I ask a clarifying question about the tree code? So the whole entry code, the entire tree code were mentioned, and and then the Lake Oswego tree code was mentioned. And I'm I'm just curious, like, is the Lake Oswego code like, whoever mentioned that, was that because that's a good code? Or Yes. Because

because if you drive to Lake Oswego, you see a lot of trees, and they seem to have A

lot of old trees. A lot

of old trees.

Yeah. Some

How do how do they maintain those trees? What's the what

You're not speaking to the code. You're speaking to the city.

To the outcomes?

Correct.

Yeah. To the to the perceived outcomes.

Right. So I think the thing, at least about especially about Lake Oswego is how do they integrate development or new development while maintaining the sort of trees that they are able to, I mean, to to

because I haven't I mean, I've worked in Portland. I haven't worked in Lake And I know they have, like, incredible issues with TreeCode with developers, you know, cutting first and Yeah. Like, the entitlement level in Lake Oswego is you know, in in TreeCode is onerous. Right? Because people wanna develop, and they don't want,

you know, these kind of

features that first and stuff like that. So but I'm just curious because I'd like to dig into this a little bit. And

Well, it it's so when I when I go to Lake Oswego, I think, wow. It is I see a lot of tree lined beautiful things. I also know that their sign code is pretty unique in that you know, you don't see a lot of big signs in Lake Oswego because the way their sign code is written. And, you know, that came up when we were doing sign code. Well, you know, why don't we just copy Lake Oswego?

They said, oh, because you can't put up signs in Lake Elswegal. People still find McDonald's even though they don't have giant arches 30 feet in the air. So, you know, if it's onerous and not doable, that's one thing that I would kinda like to get community input on this too because we've had people testify before us that they want to see the tree code updated. And my question is, to what extent do you wanna protect every single tree? We need to know we have to have clear and objective standards of which trees get protected. Do we go through and mark heritage trees out here, which then becomes a problem to people who don't want their tree to be tagged as heritage. So

I get a lot of comments about street trees and stuff like that from people as well. So just Okay. Things like that need to be addressed. They're always tearing up for sidewalks, and there's mitigants for that. And I mean, just things like that. But I do have a thing too, and that would be getting an extent to which this home rule thing happens. We can effectuate as much of that as possible in our code. Okay. So that's very vague and broad, but

Oh, I like it.

It's the principle of it, I think, is what would be a priority for me.

Yep. Justin, talk to you.

I would say, you know, my primary concerns have are contained and addressed, you know, within this. My I think my primary concern is is just, you know, what is the state trying to impose on us and and what can we do about it.

Got it.

Oh my gosh. Yep. Commissioner Barnes, you just win the award for cuteness factor there. Yeah.

She think the door broke down.

Go ahead and give your top top two things you if I if I only get to say two things at the council, what do you want me to

Yeah. I think we we covered it tree code and potentially, which is probably gonna be covered in the downtown plan, old town, an aesthetics guiding document for, you know, not necessarily conformity, but to try to kinda have a Sherwood aesthetic for the downtown, trying to be, like, a palette for color choices and things like that to be a little bit more uniform.

Good. That's a good one.

That's a beautiful one. Alright. Alright.

Joe. You all.

Yes. Thank you. You

can hear me fine?

Yes.

Okay. I am just gonna repeat what others have said. This is a tremendous I I realized we may not get to everything on here, but if we try to, that would be pretty foolish. I think we won't get to everything that's on this list. I think the tree code and then the old town strategic plan, I think what makes Sherwood one of the best places in the Portland area is that we have a real and compressed actual downtown slash old town, and that's what really is the heart and soul of the community, and everything radiates out from it.

I mean, it's true. We have Highway 99 that kinda flows like a river through it. Nothing we can do about that. So those are my top two.

Thank you, Joe. Very poetic. Thank you, Oleg. Poetic. Something very poetic, Joe. Appreciate that.

Something like commissioner Barnes, you mentioned, made me think of, something that Eric had mentioned earlier. And Mhmm. It was about certain legislation that either is coming or or, you know, will happen that essentially takes takes away, like, our design standards is is what you're saying, like, for for single family homes or for Yep. If. So I I I'm sure that's a concern for, you know, for staff already, but I I think maybe some intention to add that in terms of if we're losing something significant that I know was, you know, planning commission staff had had previously put a lot of time into.

Yeah. And if there's anything we can do about that. So

Go ahead.

Yeah. Along with just design standards in general, all around, I would say. Yeah.

Yeah. Basically, the the really short there is there's a bill that passed last year, and it's in effect. It's one of those that was like, it was it just didn't require a code update because it was kind of a you just basically, you can't apply your code is is basically all said. So what it said was, for single family development, over 20 units, So, basically, a 20 unit or more subdivision, which is very common in Sherwood. Design standards generally and there is some detail about what's a design standard.

Design standards cannot be applied for those types of development. That that past is in effect. And so as we continue to get subdivisions in the Brooklyn edition, If it's over 20 units somewhere else in Sherwood, if that's viable somewhere, the the residential design standard code that you guys adopted a few years ago, most of it does not apply. That's in effect now. They sure wouldn't push back hard on that. A lot of cities pushed back really hard on that, and the legislature passed it.

So can we limit subdivisions to 20 units or and one or less? Yeah. I

mean, I appreciate the sentiment. I mean, we'll look into, like, what options we have. Mean, the that's why I'd say it is, like, we'll do everything we can the Sherwood way. Right? So, like, CFAC in CFAC, we did have some choice there. You know, we can't we can't blatantly, you know, not ignore state law because there's implications there. Yeah. But to the extent that that there's ways that we can adopt code or implement our code the Sherwood way in light of all of these sort of challenges that we're facing, we'll absolutely do that. So can

so everything has to be clear and objective, and the opportunity for someone to do a fast tracked application if they follow this prescription, you know, reduced fees, fast tracked. If you come in with this cookie cutter design elements already in place, then the application for your 25 houses goes through. If you don't have this design if you don't pick one of the three designs in our code, then you go through a full regular. You can't. There's no there's no hearings process almost anymore either. So Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

I mean, I think that there may be some ways, to be honest, I haven't given a lot of thought, but there may be some some ways to either I I don't know that it's I I mostly take any type of stick off the table. Right? That's just not this work. Yeah. But maybe there's, incentives. I think that's probably the best way forward of, like you know? Because we're we're already bound by, say, the hundred and twenty day rule. Right? And so but but maybe it's a it's a code update to say, if you apply our design standards and meet them even though you don't have to, we could get you through in blank. What you know?

So may and I don't know. We'd rather run that by legal and all that sort of stuff, but that would be a more that would be a a a smarter way way forward as opposed to trying some

of the fees or something, developmental fees? Maybe I'd be able see

Financial impact of that. My city at the city council. Yeah. Yeah. Know, I just just really big picture, I think, you know, what I've seen is there there the the there's this this tsunami of legislation, and we've tried to kinda weigh in and express our concerns, and the League of Oregon Cities has and, you know, others as well.

And, really, it's about, like, hey. Like, just unintended outcomes, for example, of, like, you know, hey. You know, these design standards were intended to actually promote walkability, for example. And, you know, the state SC fact, which is also around climate and walkability, for example. But now developers are getting out of standards that warranted it to promote walkability, it's gonna, of hold things back to wider garages and auto orientation. Right? And so those are the types of things where we're like, hold on a second. I'm like, are you sure? Are you sure? Like, you guys have the authority to legislate, but here's the outcomes that we see, and here's the things that you're not.

You know, we just we haven't gotten anywhere. And I guess just really big picture, like, that that wave, like, it's already swept over and sit, and I think we're just gonna keep getting washed up, and it is my hunch, over the next few years. And it's frustrating, I know. And I just say, like, the other cities for the most part, we're we're communicating frequently with Happy Valley, for example, and have good relationship with them and sort of sharing our concerns and and, you know, testimony and, sort of coordinating to the extent we can. So it's not too sure what it's in other cities as well. Typically, suburban cities, you know, the city of Portland at times, they, you know, expresses concern with some of these things. But they they haven't slowed down. So

So is there any possibility that in a you said some of these are sunsetting in

the second year. So, like, for example, the the the 20 unit or more subdivision, no design standards, that does have a sunset date. Okay. And so a lot of these are the way they've been framed is we're in a housing crisis. You know, we need housing production kind of ASAP. And so they've all kind of been intended to, like, boost housing production, and some of them are more temporary in nature. I think the question is, of course, you're not gonna say this, do they just simply, you know, continue to to renew renew Well, and and it's,

you know, as I think as any of us know, you know, housing in The United States, especially, like, it's not a temporary thing. Like, once things are they're they're they're it's it's not, you know, it's not like Japan where new housing, like, just kinda comes through every like like, whatever's there just gets demolished and something that, you know, is so Yeah. Yeah. So And I and I

and that's kind of the testimony that we've been providing as well is that, you know, that that, hey. We went through lot of it is about, like, moving the goalposts on the community as well. Some of the testimony we've been providing is like, hey. You guys went through a, you know, a two year design standard process for homes. Yeah. And part of that was to sort of make the middle housing more palatable by the community and say, okay. If we're gonna do middle housing, here's we have confidence in what it's gonna look like and, you know, all that sort of stuff. And now it's just like the goalpost or movement is like, well, now you still have to allow a middle housing, but you don't you can't do design standards. So, you know, it's That's

why I wonder I mean, why wouldn't we just pull our Sherwood West application and say no?

Yeah. And then that's that'd be, of course, totally into into the city into the

city council. That's that's a side part. But so what I was gonna ask about that, because one of them said, is there any chance that once these developments start occurring and people see it and they take it back to the legislature that they will repeal any of these or cause them? That's why I'm asking as we go through this process of, codifying what the state has put in place, I'd like to have a, a safety net that says, and if it gets repealed or whatever that we have these sections identified that we can just pull them back out.

Yeah. To the extent that that we can do that. Absolutely. And I think that should be part of the the broader strategy. So if it is a, yeah, a code update is the most strategic thing to do as opposed to just a direct application of the law, then then the same sort of conversation hits and a repeal date sort of at the end of that code section. Yeah. Okay. That would good.

That was a kid question kind of off of what Gina said. So if they have the standard ad developments or divisions, subdivisions, 20 units or more, Is there I mean I mean, what what happens or what's the downside if we do try to implement something to the degree of, you know, subdivisions and Sherwood will be 20 units or less only, does that put us into, you know, some kind of, like, legal jeopardy, or does it then result in because I do support more housing, new housing, but done right, done smart, you know, done well. And if all of that's just gonna get thrown out, then let's throw out that housing with the for the time being. Like, it it what's the downside? Yeah.

It's a hard question to answer off the top. I really don't know. Yeah. You know? And I've got put that more into, like, a a stick type category, and I think that's, and I think that's probably a slippery slope for us. Okay. You know, because there there are that's why I really like the carrot option, if anything. Yeah. You know, that that there is a new I think it got set up last year. There's a new state state office, housing and accountability and production office, HAPO.

And so, frankly, like, the state has a stick. And so we have to be very mindful of that. And, you know, if if, you know, there there are implications. And I'll say not just for, like, a you know, if we're not applying state law, for example, like, that's that's one very clear, you know, issue. It would be an issue.

So I I wouldn't recommend that. But then there there is an outcome of that, which is basically, you know, could be a model code instead a model code instead. And then we had and then it's like we have no control. And it's like, it's a state model code that gets applied in Sherwood, and who knows what what the outcomes there are. So it's like it's almost like we gotta be really careful how we how we approach this, and that's why I really like the the carrot approach.

The other thing I'll say is that, you know, that staff will do everything we can, and and I don't think that every developer is gonna be is gonna be a a bad actor, if you wanna say it that way. I think that there certainly will be developers that share Sherwood's goals just because of the it's probably gonna come down to circumstance, like, what property are they on? What is the zoning? You know? What does it allow?

What what is sort of the market at the time? What what is their brand as a developer? Right? And there's gonna be different developers that come, and some of them are gonna probably nail kind of what they're looking for as well. But there are there are gonna be others that are less inclined to follow the letter, you know, dot every dot every I cross every t of Sherwood's code because it's gonna be a little bit cheaper for them or or whatever. Right.

And that's what happened with in some sense, in the old town, which was, you know, trying to do an old town design criteria and hearing from, you know, consultants or staff or whoever said it. Well, it's gonna be market driven. People who develop in Old Town Sherwood are going to look at what's around and then develop, like, for, like you know? Yeah. It'll be, kind of the it'll be okay when it till it wasn't okay. Yeah. And that and

that's the concern is that, you know, the market's gonna drive it. Well, you know, I think we want a little more security beyond, you know, market forces Yeah. Yeah. Just to result in, so higher aesthetic

for Yeah. Yep. And then that's typically what coats have done. And I think the the sentiment, right now is that, like, there are a lot of barriers to housing production, and one of those is coats. But we can agree or disagree with that, but that's the sentiment. And so that's why these are coming. You know, I just just throw this out there. Don't need to get into it now, but, you know, there are some some new communities in in Washington County that are being developed with fairly typical developers that we we would see in Sherwood. The one I'm thinking of specifically is Reed's Crossing in Hillsborough. Has anyone been there?

That that is a development that I I'd have to do a little more research, but I think they did a a good job on the master plan there. And it's kind of resulted in in a if you go there, like, as if the planner in me is like, this is this is nice. Where is it? Hillsborough. Oh, it's kind of Hillsborough. It's called Reed's Crossing.

It's about 500, like, 170

ish.

98 to two zero nine. We where the re refilled mark restaurant used to be?

I don't know, actually. But maybe. I guess I I throw that out there, and a lot of it was developed before before these sort of rollbacks of local codes. And so some of it was just the Hillsborough code. But I think that is, if I were to kinda try and be a little bit optimistic here is, like, you know, if we can do good planning from the bigger picture planning stages, right, open space, transportation, like that sort of thing, you can really try and mitigate as much as possible against a developer who wants to do something on the cheap, for example.

Because, you know, when you go out there, it's clear that there that all the developers are kinda maintaining a certain quality. Right? And and and I don't know exactly why, and I'm sure some of them are a little, you know, less quality than others, but there's there's duplexes. There's there's triplexes. There's there's townhomes. There's single family. And so, you know, I think that's a good example of kind of a new neighborhood that we're likely to see in Sherwood West with kind of the same players that we see here in Sherwood. And so I guess that that's my only little nugget of optimism is that if we can because I I don't know that we're gonna be successful. I'm just being open with you guys. I don't know that we're gonna be successful in finding this silver bullet to sort of roll back, you know, to get back what we've lost already.

I just don't I just don't know. And so if there is a way forward for us, I think it's through master planning. I think it's through, you know, high quality kind of staff reviews to the extent we can do that, engineering reviews, things like that. But Reeves Crossing, you know, they've used open space really well. They've used kinda anchor commercial tenants really well, that type of thing.

When you get out of Reeves Crossing, you're on TV Highway, for example, which needs a lot of attention, I think. But once you get into Reed's Crossing, it's it's kind of a nice nice and it's it it truly is fairly mixed in terms of unit size and price. You know, they're all a little bit higher for because it's new, but it's not cookie cutter single family. And so something kind of, at least to a certain extent, is working out there. And so I just say, like, maybe we wanna do maybe we wanna do a tour in spring or something like weather gets a little bit better.

Kinda go see. Sure. And we, you know, staff can kinda help do a dive. What what is the code? And did developers actually, you know, ignore the code but still deliver x y z, you know, and kinda get an understanding of what some stuff might look like in Sherwood West, for example. And

are design aesthetics, are they able to be maintained at, like, the master plan level to a degree? Like like, it's a good question.

You know, what I'll say, like, we're gonna have to have a code. Right? So the the master plan is gonna say, like, here's the general kind of vibe, if you will, but we're gonna have to pair it with a code. That's always gonna be required. Right?

And so that's where that's where we start to lose, and that's what all this stuff goes after. So I think once you drill down into the level, we're gonna start losing stuff, but it kinda gets back to what I just said of, like, first that are setting the stage, then maybe the developers kind of bite on bite on what we've said, you know, the table that we've set, and don't skimp, for example. So I think that that's my little maybe we maybe we could kinda land something that's still respectable for what you're looking for. Can you

speak to the PUD change that's happening? There was some limits public notice and hearing procedures on a planned unit development. So I would throw that out to say if we don't have hearing procedures for the planned unit development, what's what's the process? Because to me, that is one of the most subjective parts of our code. And so if we're not able to have a public hearings process or engage in that process, then I would say that that is the most dangerous aspect of the code to say that the developer could come in and write his own or his own PUD. So is that

Yeah. Thanks.

So is nine seven four as well, and I'm not I mean to have quite a ton.

It's on page four. And so it it says, you know, they could zone change to allow for higher density res density residential and limited public notice and hearing procedures for a planned unit development. So I would say, you know, retract the planned unit development because I don't want someone to come in and create a planned unit development and not be able to go through a hearings process. That's insane.

Yeah.

I don't know well, it looks like it's 07/01/2026, and so this is something that we're gonna have to jump on. This is a great example of, like, we need to get we need to start talking strategy here. Yep. Yep. That's a good catch. Good. Definitely. My current understanding of this is that PUD's are essentially type two staff decisions on an initial decision and that the appeal would be by, through a public hearing. So what you've stated, Gene, is basically correct. It's a it's essentially a a staff decision for a for a planned unit development.

And I I don't I think that's too not that it gets staffed, but what comes in under a PUD is, in my opinion, a legislative action because we're changing zoning on the fly. Yep. And I would say Yeah. And we retract the PUD process from being allowed in our code or redefine what a PUD is in the city of Charlotte. Our planned unit development is x. It is no longer what it's currently allowed because I that scares scares me.

Yeah. That that process, we may not have gotten everything out of the the only that we would otherwise have for now.

Yeah. And we did talk about this one at the at the council work session that that we gave this presentation at. And, yeah, basically, the discussion was, you know, that their legislative decisions that historically have been legislative decisions. The the legislators have been determining, like, what qualifies as the public good, if you will, because there's a lot of criteria around you know, it's about it's it's about kind of a a back and forth with the developer of it's a negotiation, and that's the sort of discretion and policy that comes in. And and and, absolutely, from my side, that is more appropriate and is appropriate for planning commission recommendation, city council final decision on what meets that public benefit, for example.

And the way this is written right right now and and my understanding is it it is taking that decision and forcing it to be a staff decision. That's the way it's written out.

At a bare minimum, I would say if a PUD has to remain in the code, then it's limited to less than, you know, 30,000 square feet of land or something so that it would not be impacted. I mean, the biggest PUD we have in the community was to me, looking at it over however decade it took to do it was a win for the community in so many different ways. The way it developed, the way we got housing when we wanted, and we got parks. Langer. Langer.

Because that starts at, say or, at where Albertsons used to be. That used to be Langer. And we've got the, you know, big giant park that goes all the way down there. You've got the Langer Farms Parkway. That road was developed as part of that TV.

And we got a commercial because we gave the ability for the zoning to be modified, you know, in a way that just wouldn't have happened if it had happened piecemeal. If it had come in under the regular zoning, we would not have a cohesive community with the structure that we have with a with a major thoroughfare connecting the community and connecting Old Town out. I mean, the the benefit of the community of master planning through a PUD process was

Yeah.

Tremendous. Was tremendous, and it was instrumental in making the development occur the way it did.

Yep. So how do you run how many hearings did that have? Oh, boy.

Over the years? A lot.

Over the year. Yeah. Because it was, like Faced. Super phased because Target was part of it. You know?

The smaller homes around Target were a part of it as well.

That was a separate one. Yeah. Yeah. Because the houses across the street, they were developed under a code that was brought in and sunsetted for the purpose of having zero lot line homes.

Do you know, like, how much the commission contributed to that? Like, was was a lot of that design?

It was I think it started before I was on

the Right.

This was started in the nineties. Yeah. But throughout the process, we were engaged. This is my funniest story. When I first started on the planning commission, one of the first things that we saw was the Target application. And I'm getting ready to go on a vacation, and I look at the application and I go, well, I'm not gonna be here for the hearing. So I sent a memo into staff and said, I've read the application. It it looks like the building's facing the wrong direction.

I don't recall about this.

So I come back from a vacation, and they had the the applicant had continued the hearing because when they first put Target on the parking lot, the loading docks were gonna be facing and be right where Red Robin is. And the side of the building was going to be on Twalton Sherwood Road, and it was going to be facing towards Sherwood with the loading docks at Red Robin. And I said I said, I think the building's facing the wrong direction. Involvement and hearings. And because it was a PUD, some of the community benefit needed to be, you know, before we had design standards.

And the original building was a tilt up concrete like they had in, Tiger. And one of the other commissioners said, well, why can't it look like the one in Wilsonville? It's got this stuff on it. And then they they came back, and they brought this stuff. And so through the process, we came out with a result that was fabulous for the community because I can't imagine Target Loading Docks being where Red Robin is. Yeah. And that Red Robin being kind of the anchor point and a connection for how it connects to the stuff that's across the street. Things have

It reminds me of the that orientation reminds me a little bit of the, Fred Meyer in Tualatin. Yes. Tualatin is a great great city.

Yeah. But it's we see the wrong way.

In Tualatin Sherwood Road, you just see the side, and there's there's trash cans there. And, you know, they got their big compactor there, and the the front is kind of way over here. And, yeah,

that thing Touching versus everything that's north of that Yep.

Exactly. Exactly. Newer development. Yep.

Yep. Yeah. And so it wasn't I no. The missioners all throughout the whole process Yeah. Provided their input.

Those are the good days, Gene. You come in and come back from vacation and The building. Buildings the other way. Great. Yeah. Cool. I wanna be really mindful of time. We've going at it about two hours now. Any other No. No. There's no Any other discussion? I really appreciate the the feedback. And, Jean, you feel like you've got what you need?

Yeah. I'm yeah. I'll try and tie this together with the pillars that helped last time. It's to to say these are the pillars that we're trying to approach that

I'll say one more quick thing. Mhmm. In our last hearing, when as we were going back and forth with the developer a little bit over the course of a couple weeks, when there were multiple places where the applicant was saying, well, this is not clear and objective. Therefore, we're not going to do it. And this is not clear and objective.

Therefore, we're not going to do it. It turned out pretty well, in my opinion, I think, because the staff spent so much time carefully answering and pushing back. But getting back to our priorities for 2026, it is very, very important that we should that we can say it's as practically speaking, it's about as objective as it can possibly be and and as least subjective as it can be because they would be no fun at all if applicants learn that they can simply say this isn't clear and objective. Therefore, it doesn't apply.

Yeah. Absolutely. And that's why I wanna make this a priority so that we can to the extent the state law in the future now and in the future allows us to apply that clear and objective standard. Right? We need to get the base right, and then we'll see if some other thing supersedes even that, but we need to get that base foundation right. And I think that's both both tree codes, we get enforced at a and the design standards, we get enforced at. Yeah.

When are we what days do we meet next month? Are are we on for both? No. The third or just

I think we're looking at oh, I think we're looking at a work session for the first meeting.

Yeah. Don't ninth.

Is that the ninth? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I I would plan on that. The other date is what's the eleventh? No. No. Definitely not. Christmas Eve eve. No. We're not doing that. Tentatively plan on the ninth.

Okay. Thank you for asking. Yep.

Yeah. Will will dinner be provided, like, again?

You don't have to be honest.

It's clear.

I'm just I'm

just He was silent on it.

You to Yeah. Spicy.

Starting at, yeah, maybe. Maybe. Maybe. And also, maybe. So generally speaking, if we start at six, could we be guys dinner? Yeah. It's if you guys behave, then you can say Oh, makeup.

Alright, Joe. Any closing comments before we turn off the live theme?

Nope. I'm good. Alright.

Thanks, Joe. Thanks, Joe.