Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Oh, I see. Thank you. Okay. Okay. You guys ready? Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Hey, Cody. Yes. Yes. Hey, just wanted to confirm um you know I'm not there in person tonight. Do we do we have a quorum of our commission? Yeah, we have a quorum and we're about ready to get started. Awesome.

Okay. All right. Thank you everyone. Planning Commission, April 17th, 2025. It is just past 5:30 p.m. I'm calling this meeting to order. Paul, may we please have the roll call. Case is absent. Cody Cornet here. Doug Grants is absent. Maria Pena here. Barry Pippenich muted is here. Mark Popoff here. And Nick Portella is absent. All right. Thank you. Let's That is a quorum though, correct? Uh let's stand for the pledge of allegiance, please. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay. Thank you. Next is the approval of the agenda. If commissioners have had time to review the agenda, may I please have a motion to approve it with a second motion to um approve the agenda. Oh, I'll second that. Thank you. A motion has been made to approve the agenda with a second. All in favor to approve the agenda, raise your right hand, say I. I. I. Thank you. Excuse me. I didn't see Car's vote. Commissioner Pippenich, can you hear us? Hey, Carrie, are you un are you able to

unmute yourself and say yes for approving the agenda? Can you ask her again? Cody Carrie, can you hear us now? Uh, will you unmute yourself and just and just approve the motion to uh approve the agenda? Approve. Okay. Thank you. Next is the approval of the minutes from the April 3rd meeting. If all commissioners have had a chance to review those minutes, may I please have a motion to approve and a second? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. I'll second. Thank you very much. A motion has been made to approve the minutes from the April 3rd meeting and seconded. All in favor of approving those minutes, raise your right hand, say I. I. I. Thank you. Excellent. Next is the time for public comment. During this portion of the meeting, anyone may speak out on any subject that does not later appear on the agenda. 5 minutes per person will be allowed. Anyone here um making any comments not related to the subdivision appeal? Everyone's here seems to be here for the subdivision appeal. Okay, thanks. We'll move on from

that. Next is the quasi judicial public hearing uh appeal 3825. Appalent Pam Danzer. The request is appeal of the administrative approval of subdivision 86-24 on March 21, 2025 for the approval to site and develop a two-phase single family residential subdivision. Phase one will consist of 14 lots on 3.33 acres inside city limits. The remainder remainder will be annexed into the city and later divided into 15 lots. Now is the time specified for the commission to conduct a quasi judicial hearing. Public hearing to consider the following matter. Appeal application number 38-25 which I just described and appeal to of the administrative approval of subdivision application number 86-24. This hearing requires the commission to make its decision based exclusively on the applicable criteria, the evidence in the record, and specific findings. The substantive criteria on which the commission will base its decision in this matter are found in the staff report. Anyone who wishes to testify must be recognized be me by me before testifying. When I recognize you, please proceed to the microphone and state your name and mailing address for the record. The hearing is also required to be recorded. Generally, the public hearing procedure goes as follows. We will begin with a staff report and any questions the commission may have of the staff. After the staff report, we will hear from the applicant. after the applicant will hear from the appellant. Next, I will ask for testimony from any proponents of the appeal. And proponent testimony is limited to no more than three minutes per proponent. Then I will ask for testimony from the opponents of the appeal. And opponent testimony is limited to no more than 3 minutes per opponent as well. Next, I'll ask for testimony from anyone else who wishes to offer relevant

testimony or ask relevant questions. that all such testimony is again limited to no more than 3 minutes per testifier. After all other testimony, the applicant will have an opportunity for final rebuttal. To expedite the hearing, commissioners may ask questions of persons as they testify, and I may exclude or limit cumulative, repetitious, or immaterial testimony consistent with the planning commission's bylaws. When this process has been concluded, I will close public testimony, and the commission will deliberate towards the decision. During the hearing, some important standards apply. First, if you testify, please address your testimony to the applicable substantive criteria or other criteria which the person believes applies to the decision from the comprehensive plan or the Dallas Municipal Code Title 10. Second, failure to raise an issue with enough detail to allow the commissioners and the parties an opportunity to respond to that issue prohibits an appeal to land use Board of Appeals on that issue. Third, failure to participate in this public hearing, either orally or in writing, precludes appeal to ladies board of appeals. Fourth, prior to concluding the hearing, anyone may ask that the record be held open for additional evidence or arguments. If such a request is made, the commission will either a continue the hearing for, excuse me, continue the hearing to a time and date at least 7 days in the future, or b hold the open record for at least 7 days. Finally, the commission the commission's final decision must include findings of fact demonstrating the applicable needs are met. These are the rules. Are there any questions? Do any of the members of the commission need to declare any exparte contacts conflict of interest or bias? I do not. Nick or Kerry? No. No. The public hearing is now open. May I please have the staff report? Good evening, Chair Cornet, commissioners. Joshua Chandler,

Community Development Department. Give me one second here as I organize myself. All right. So, um, as discussed, the item for discussion today is appeal number 38-25, the appellent Pam Danzer site address. There is no site currently addressed. There's the information for the map and tax lot number. They are two tax lots. The zoning is low density residential. As we discussed, this is the appeal of the administrative approval of subdivision 86-24. So, looking at some project timelines, uh the application was deemed complete September 17th, 2024. A notice of decision was mailed out March 21st. The 10-day appeal period was March 31st, and the notice of appeal was submitted on that date. Um the appeal um hearing is this evening, April 17th, and the statemandated deadline to approve this application or deny this application, make a decision is May 20th. The reason this is extended out, the applicant has submitted two timeline extensions throughout the process extending it to the May 20th date. Apologies here. Okay, so this is the subject property. It's kind of behind the hospital. You get there off of View Court up 21st East 21st Street. Those are two parcels right next to each other. The one on the lefth hand side, phase one, 3.33 acres. The one on the

right, 3.91 acres. That's phase two. This is a layout of the proposal. 29 lots broken up into two phases. Phase one 14 lots. Phase two 15 lots. Uh this development was also approved uh or reviewed through um a separate land use application. This was in front of the planning commission March March 6th. This was variance I have the wrong number there. My apologies. Variance number. I think it's 131-25. Uh this was a request to reduce the block width internal to this proposed subdivision. It was approved and a notice of decision was sent out. It was approved March 6. Notice decision was sent out I believe the very next day. So, the appeal issues um outlined in your staff report on pages nine and 10. These are the basis. There's six reasons. They're broken up a little bit further in your staff report. Six reasons the planning commission should grant the appeal request and reverse the director's decision. These are the pelants six reasons. One is site suitability and geologic hazards. Two, compliance with development standards and development feasibility. Three, traffic access and emergency response issues. four, infrastructure and utility issues. Five, compatibility with neighborhood and housing needs. And six is transparency, notification, and legal compliance issues. So, touching on the first uh the first issue here is the appeal issues. I've kind of broken these out. These are bullet points that I'll touch on of of various um responses in the staff report. These start um after after mention I think on page 10 is where they start. So the pelants argument is they claim the site is geologically unstable for development due to slopes soil classifications from Wasco County moderate landslide sus susceptibility per statewide mapping and

nearby history of slope h slope failures. They argue a geologic impact study should be required before approval. So touching on the city's jurisdiction and authority, uh this entire site lies within the city's urban growth boundary. Uh while part of the property, phase two is outside, it is still subject to city standards due to a long-standing joint management agreement with Wasco County in which the city of the Dallas oversees all land use applications inside the urban growth boundary. Uh since the site is not within the national scenic area, the city holds exclusive land use authority and the Dallas municipal code title 10 governs the review process. So the applicable code touching on which touches on site suitabil which touches on geological hazards um is chapter 10.8 this regulates development in areas with physical hazards including including steep slopes and geologic instability. Under this chapter, certain types of development may require a physical constraints permit to ensure appropriate engineering and mitigation measures are applied. After further review, staff determined the proposed development is not located in any of the city's identified geologic hazard zones. Therefore, under Dallas Municipal Code 10.8040, a formal geologic impact study cannot be required for this development. The next is hazard mapping standards. Uh the city does not rely on external classifications like the Wasco County soil land use system or the statewide land use susceptibility map for development review. Instead, the city applies its own 2010 geologic hazard study which was prepared by a certified hydrogeeologist Mark Yinger. The study identifies five hazard zones based on slope stability modeling and historical data. The site is not located in one of these areas.

uh steep slope requirements. While portions of the site exceed 25% slope, development on such terrain is not prohibited. Rather, it triggers engineering standards and a requirement for a physical constraints permit under the Dallas municipal code. This includes any grading or earthwork over 50 cubic yards. So permitting for this development, the applicant will be required to submit detailed civil engineering plans for this. This will be prepared by a licensed engineer and will be reviewed by the city's engineering division which I believe have 50 if not 60 years experience between the three on their team. They will be required to obtain a physical constraints permit which will be tied to those engineered plans and they will be required to apply for a DEEQ 1200C permit for erosion control due to the fact that the site exceeds 1 acre in size. So looking at some maps of topography as you can see the the areas that are hatched the most are areas that have 25% slope in them. Touching on a little bit of the geologic hazard zones. This is a map of the city of the Dallas. The study was done in 2010, as I mentioned, by a hydrogeeologist, Mark Yinger. This is where we base our geologic hazard zone requirements on. You can see they're listed 1 through five. That star on the bottom is the location of the subdivision. Here's a closer look at it. This is the development site. As you can see up in the right hand corner is geohhazard zone 3. that is the closest zone but the site is not located in a geohhazard zone. Therefore, a geologic impact statement is not required for this development. Uh so the next issue is um the concern of compliance with development standards and development feasibility. Um, so the appellant

contends that topography and limited buildable areas will prevent several lots from meeting zoning requirements such as minimum setbacks and frontage. So touching on setback review, setbacks are reviewed at the time of a building permit, not during subdivision approval. Since the applicant has not submitted any building plans or proposed structures, setback compliance cannot be determined at this time. Uh, slopes and buildability. Um the Dallas Municipal Code does not find a build does not define a buildable area nor prohibit development on steep slopes. Instead, it requires applicants to demonstrate the future construction will comply with standards through engineering and a permit review. Uh lot frontage standards. Dallas Municipal Code 10.5010 requires at least 50 ft of frontage on a public street for single family homes in the RL zone. Appellant incorrectly argues frontage must be along East 21st Street. In fact, any public street qualifies. Lots 4 through 7 meet this standard by abuing both Smith Ridge Loop or East 21st Street each for over 50 ft. This can be found further in finding number 24. And the next is the required plan modification. staff did identify in our review that one lot, lot number 11, does not meet the 50 foot width. So therefore, there is a condition of approval that is required that this lot be expanded. It's currently at 46 ft. So it needs to have a 50ft width and that will be recorded with the final plat. So to touch on what I was just talking about with lot frontage, the areas that are highlighted are areas that show the lot dimensions less than 50 ft. But as you can see, the areas in circles are over 50 feet. The code does not say that both sides must be 50 feet in width. Therefore, at least one side of these lots does comply with the

requirements of the Dallas Municipal Code. The next issue is traffic access, emergency response issues. Uh the appellent raises concerns about increased traffic, steep and unsafe access roads, limited emergency access, and a fire risk, referencing a 2024 brush fryer. To uh underscore this urgency, the appellant also argues that emergency access is hindered by road grades exceeding 10%. A road width and design that's inadequate, and the lack of a secondary emergency access, which all contribute to unacceptable increased fire risks. They also referenced the requirement for a left turn lane at the intersection of Dry Hollow Road and 19th Street. So, traffic impact study was required with this as with all subdivisions of 16 or more units. The study conducted by a licensed traffic engineer projects 302 daily trips and concludes that all studied intersections, four in total, will operate within the city's standards through 2030, which is the anticipated date of full buildout for this subdivision. the threshold for a left turn lane at that intersection is not met. Meaning that it is not required to they are not required to put in a left turn lane at that intersection. So there's something called a level of service and this is a there is a queuing that we'd look at and cars turning and you have to meet a certain threshold to require any mitigation. That threshold was not met. So therefore there is no on-site mitigation required per the traffic impact study. So emergency access measures uh uh the contending that um the roads are 10% are not adequate for um for emergency access. Um this entire subdivision located off of View Court is entirely accessed on a road that exceeds 10% grade. There are 35 houses currently

in this subdivision that are all accessed on roads that exceed 10% grade. The project actually reduces the steepest grade of 16 12%. There's a 16 12% slope in this subi in this area that already accesses multiple houses are accessed off of it. Leading into the subdivision, they actually drop that slightly due to the existing grade to 15. and also all internal roads within the subdivision will be under a 10% grade. So, as a condition of approval, there will be the addition that fire access will be insured um providing either temporary turnarounds in the in phase 2 or uh road extensions that extend all the way through phase 2 to allow for a fire apparatus weighing up to 85,000 lbs, which is fire code requirement. In addition to the slope, all new homes will require residential fire sprinkler systems. Uh the alternative access and easement East 20th Street is not feasible due to a steep terrain and the Dallas Municipal Code does not require a secondary access point to be provided. Um, there was also mention of an easement in here, a 30- foot wide easement to the south that that the appellent references uh the city did not mention, which actually it was mentioned and was actually called out in the plan itself. And that southern easement will be paved 24 ft wide and there will be no parking signs installed along that entire easement to ensure continuous traffic moving forward. Not traffic. It's only going to access lots on the south, but it'll also provide access um for the um orchard to the south. Sorry, can you say can you say that one more time? Yeah. So, up here on the screen, these are existing easements that are already on the site. A little expanded because these, you know, as you can see, there's there's already six properties that are accessed through

this subject property through established easements. these easements. The developer is intending on actually expanding these easements and the one to the north will provide full rideway improvements. Currently, it's a dirt path leading into these properties. So, the developer will be putting in full rideway improvements. We're talking curbs, gutters, sidewalks, drive approaches. All of those paid for by the developer. And to the south, that is the easement that currently provides access to an orchard. to the south. It's currently a dirt path. It will be improved, not not a rideway improvement, no sidewalks because it's not a city street, but it will be paved and it will it will have no parking signs along that entire section. So, the next um issue is related to infrastructure and utility concerns. Uh, the appellant raises concerns that low existing water pressure in the neighborhood may be worsened by the proposed development. They argue similar past issues required infrastructure upgrades throughout the city and suggested upgrades should be mandated here. They also assert utility extensions must ensure fire suppression capabilities and that the annexation of the site should occur before any approvals to prevent future blight caused by incomplete infrastructure. So the response to the fire water pressure concerns actually city staff have already confirmed that water sanitary sewer and storm drainage services are already available abuing to the proposed development. The developer I'll show you on a slide here in a few is going to extend all those utilities throughout the entire site connecting to every single proposed lot. After further analysis of the water pressure in the area, city staff have confirmed that static water pressure at a nearby hydrant shows sufficient pressure even for homes located at one of the highest

nearby elevations, meeting state requirements of 30 PSI under normal conditions and 20 PSI during fire flow. While those pressure standards are not required for subdivision approval, we did want to mention those as they are mentioned in the appellence appeal. The utility installation requirements. The applicant will be required, as I mentioned, to extend utilities all throughout the site. Insulation must meet all city standards. These designs will be subject to review and approval by the city engineer and all related costs will be borne by the applicant, not by the city or any abuing property owner. U touching on annexation, phase one of the site, as I as I mentioned, is located within city limits. Phase 2 is located outside of city limits but within the urban growth boundary. The annexation of phase 2 is a condition of approval and must occur before connection to any city facility, any city utility, excuse me. The appellent's concerns about neighborhood blight from incomplete infrastructure are speculative and not supported by facts in the record. Furthermore, these concerns are not part of the approval criteria under title 10 and any nuisance issues of the future of this any with caused that may be caused by the subdivision will be addressed through the normal code enforcement procedure like any other development. So, this is looking at the utility plan. You can see all those squiggly lines running through the entire thing. I don't expect everybody to be able to see all of this, but I did want to highlight three new fire hydrants that will be installed as well. Uh, so the next issue is compatibility with neighborhood and housing needs. The appellant argues that development is inconsistent with surrounding neighborhood character and the city's housing goals. They claim the lot sizes are too small compared to the neighboring lots and that the proposed home prices of $500,000 plus do not

support affordability. They also claim the development fails to minimize environmental impacts. So the response OS and housing response under OS 197A 400 and associated case law, the city is legally obligated to apply only clear and objective H standards when reviewing housing developments. Subjective concepts like whether a project fits the neighborhood or affordability cannot be used to deny a project. The minimum lot size for the RL zone is 5,000 square feet and this application meets or exceeds that requirement for all lots. The home size and pricing um while concerns about affordability are understood. Pricing is a market outcome and not an approval criteria. The proposed homes may be market rate, but they still increase the city's overall housing supply which helps alleviate pressure on more affordable segments. Increasing total housing supply is one of the most effective long-term tools to support affordability. Environmental impact claims. Um I believe I changed it in here to comprehensive plan. So the appellant selectively quoted housing policies from the comprehensive plan further detail on pages 16 and 17 to argue the project is not consistent with city goals. A full reading of these policies show otherwise. And one thing to keep in mind, we do not base decisions off the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is used to is used as a model for the municipal code, but the comprehensive plan, it is not review criteria that we look at, but we did want to touch on them. Goal 10 policy number one, it actually supports a range of housing. Not every project

must include all types or income levels. Goal 10 policy number five focuses on protecting ravines and wetlands while allowing density transfers. No such features exist on this site and the applicant has not requested a density transfer with this proposal. Goal 10 policy number 12 encourages the development on buildable lands free from natural hazards. This site qualifies and is outside of the hazards that we talked about, the geological hazard zones, which are those that we that the city uses to determine whether a geological impact study is required. All slope and geotech concerns will be addressed through the previously mentioned physical constraints permit. And to give a housing needs context, the 2023 housing needs analysis shows the Dallas needs 505 new homes over 20 years to meet demand, but annual approvals have declined from 50 units in 2021 to only 12 last year. This proposal contributes to needed housing supply and compliance with all zoning and development standards. Uh the last issue is on transparency notification and legal compliance. So, the applicant alleges procedural flaws, including insufficient public notice, short comment periods, withheld information about the developer land ownership, and violation of OS 221, 916, and 221-917, allegedly compromising the resident's rights. So, the notice and comment period, this subdivision was processed in administrative application under the Dallas Municipal Code, Title 10. Notices were mailed to all property owners within 100 feet of the site and to all affected agencies. A 14-day comment period was provided which was followed by five public comments received. One of those with 22 signatures of nearby

residents and opposition of the development. The city has a complete affidavit of mailing on record confirming timely notice occurred. Oregon law makes it clear the city is not responsible for delivery issues outside its control and proper notice was given in accordance with the DA municipal code and OS 197797 transparency of ownership. The appellent claims the developments the developer ownership of the nearby parcel was hidden. In fact, all property ownership records are publicly accessible via Wasco County's GIS system. The abuing property was subject to a separate publicly noticed land application which occurred in 2024 partition number 435-24 and was approved and recorded in 2024. The same noticing requirements occurred with that as did the subdivision 100 ft. That parcel is not part of this subdivision, therefore not discussed in the staff report and all information was available to the public throughout. The last is a legal claim under OS221, 916, and 917. Appellants reliance on these statutes is misplaced. Uh those provisions only apply to cities incorporated under a now repealed 1893 law. The city of the Dallas was incorporated in 1897 and is not subject to these statutes. These provisions are irrelevant to the city's land use process or this application. So jumping into feel a little I think this is a little out here but I wanted to to touch on the the improvements that will be provided with this development. So it it it achieves set uh sidewalk connectivity. The developer also make made accommodations for the existing development to accommodate exist. So there was um areas where the developer actually moved the roadway further to the east to accommodate existing

topography and grade on properties outside of their control. They also it resulted as you can see coming into the development you see how it kinks down slightly. They did that to also accommodate development of the property just to the north. So you can see here in the red, these are new sidewalks that are be going to be installed in front of all proposed lots. In the green, these are sidewalks that the developer will be installing and paying for in front of existing properties in the area. So five existing properties will all have brand new sidewalks and drive approaches paid for by the developer. The purple area shows the existing sidewalks. So this shows that full continuation and also we'll touch on it here in a little bit. the the applicant will be required to install a pedestrian path that divides the lots in the middle because of the length of um it exceeds 450 ft. So therefore, the requirement in the code is that a pedestrian path will need to be installed in the middle. So the review criteria is up here. I'll go through them. I'm not going to go through every single finding for you, but we'll go through and kind of give you an idea. So the first is uh section 1032080. This touches on appeal procedures. So the appellant was a party of record. They submitted their appeal on time. Staff determined there were no jurisdictional defects. Therefore, the appeal could move forward. Noticing was provided on April 3rd, 14 days prior to this meeting. These next two sections, redevelopment plans. These talk about this is a requirement that needs to be shown on every development to ensure that density is being met. Density was met on this, so a redevelopment plan was not required. um article 10510 um this is the requirements for the lowdensity zoning district touching on here um all proposed all proposed lots um all but one are in compliance with the low density standards um as a

condition of approval that one lot 11 as I mentioned it doesn't have a 50ft width so they will be required to extend increase the size of the lot frontage therefore all those lots will be in compliance looking at chapter 106 there's general regulations findings 10 through 13 in your staff report. Um rightaway widths for um East 21st Street and Smith Ridge Loop are 50 ft. This meets the requirements of the DAO's transportation system plan. Um the applicant also has an option for when it comes to emergency access and how they they choose to circulate emergency vehicles. They can either install temporary turnarounds in the subdivision or they can extend the roads all the way through, but I know that they're going to be doing this in in a phased approach. So, that's why we laid out these two options for them. And it depends on what they would like to do. But both of those, one of those needs to be what needs to occur to ensure emergency access. Um, due to the fact that this area exceeds grades over 10%, it would actually be if any new house were built in this entire neighborhood. Nowadays, any grade over 10% on a road requires that all homes are required to install fire suppression systems. So, every single home in this subdivision will have fire suppression systems. And the compliance with all fire and road safety requirements, these are addressed as conditions of approval. Uh, chapter 108, this touches on u really site uh, you know, site suitability that we touched on with the with some of the appeal issues. Um, really what it comes down to is that physical constraints permit that I talked about earlier. This site is going to be entirely engineered. A physical constraints permit is going to review all the suit all the site and soil and everything that it takes to build this site out. This is required and it will be included is included as a condition of approval. So touching on chapter 109 land division standards findings 20

through 38. This is really the crux of all land division. This is kind of the bulk of the um criteria that need to be met with a subdivision. Um as I mentioned the subdivision um lot sizes comply with zoning requirements for the RL zone. Um a variance was approved that allowed for the reduction of a block width. Um the entire site is within the urban growth boundary. Um so therefore um however uh phase two will need to be annexed before connecting to city utilities. Touched on that a little bit ago. Um there's also as I talked about due to the length of the lot or the um the length of the the interior block width um that 10 foot wide public pathway will be required to be installed. Um touching again on the this These findings you'll find touch again on the access which we already talked about the fact that some of the lots do not meet 50 feet on one side but 50 feet on the other. So there's a for there's um they are the they are the product basically of a through lot which we touched on with our variance application. Through lot is a lot that has access on two sides. Um although through lots are discouraged they may be allowed at times. Um, we do allow them only when a primary access is basically called out on a plan and then the opposite side has to have a restriction. So therefore, it's set up so that you can't have two driveways. You can't have a driveway on each side. So that's a condition in here. Um, touching more this this really touches more about engineering plans. Engineering plans are required. Um 1010 this is improvements required with development. Um I touched on the developer is required to install

improvements drive approaches in front of all existing lots. Um how subdivisions work is the applicant will be required to install curbs with the brand new lots and at the time of a brand new building permit that is when the sidewalks will come in. However, all existing lots up there that above the site, the five of them, they all um the developer will be required to install full rightway frontage. Um there's a phasing that occurs. Phasing is required. Um basically phasing needs to occur. Each phase has to ensure compliance as this as the steps go through. Uh we touched a little bit about the traffic impact study. It determined that no additional mitigation is required. Uh there will be some ride-of-way dedication that is required with this the two brand new roads that are being installed. That is kind of a summary of our findings. And with that, um, staff's recommendation would be to move to adopt resolution number PC627A-25, which is a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the directors of approval subdivision number 86-24 based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the agenda staff report with all conditions of approval referenced within the staff report. I've also provided two other alternatives I'm happy to bring up when we're after deliberation and um happy to answer any questions. Uh in uh one of the conditions was that all runoff from houses, driveways and so forth have to go into the uh storm sewer system. Uh why is that necessary? We're not bringing in any additional water from elsewhere. Um you know it' be this

the runoff from the houses would be the same as uh you know what rains on that area. Now um are you so concurrently all development is required to either retain on site they can retain the water on site or they connect into a storm system. Yeah. Yeah. Do uh retaining it on site it seems like would make more sense. Um that'd help water landscaping for one thing. U uh it certainly would be cheaper than uh having to uh you know run everything into the storm sewer. Well, the thing about this is I I believe I mean the the applicant can speak to it. Um I think with the topography as it is retaining on site actually might be difficult. Um, and the fact that they are bringing in a stormline system that's going to run through the entire subdivision and connect to every single lot. So, your roof drains will immediately be able to connect straight into the storm system that's being installed. They uh can't disperse the the runoff from the roofs uh on the property. Um it it it is an an option. I would probably want our engineering team to to really take a stab at that. Um but due to the fact that you know everything an entire storm system is being stubbed to every single lot. So you're going to have every lot's going to have a water sewer and storm lateral. So your roof could go straight your roof drain can go straight into it. So this would be an option or or requirement that uh roof drains suppose I don't know if he

intends on putting uh roof gutters on the houses or not but u u an option be just have a infiltration trench or or some sort system like that uh where the eaves where the water run off the eaves. Yeah. So, here it is referenced as being required. There could be an exception, you know, if a if an engineer's report is provided to us um stating that there there's no need to connect to the storm system, but due to the fact that the developer is connecting a storm system to every single lot, it is probably the most feasible option. Yeah. Okay, I got I have a few questions. Um, so in regards to these hazard maps, so the city does not use county or state hazard maps. It only uses the city hazard map that was um contracted and built in 2010. That's correct. Okay. Um is what's the reason that the city doesn't use county or state? It is neither are neither are referenced in the Dallas municipal code. Um they're not our jurisdiction to oversee. Um and it was these maps were specifically done for the city of the Dallas to account for you know the specifics of the Dows itself. Okay, got it. Um what never mind. Um, the traffic impact study was done by who? Oh, I'd have to get the name. I think it's Ferguson and Associates. Oh, I meant like who who contracts that out? The developer. The developer does. It's required um to deem an application complete. So, it's required on the front end. Okay. So, the

developer is in charge of finding out their of searching and hiring that contractor, paying for that contractor. City has nothing to do with it. Correct. Okay. Does the city have any guidelines in regards to like um I mean I got they have to be some type of reputable traffic impact study person, right? They can't just be some Yeah. licensed traffic engineer. Um the scope of it, we have a a breakdown. I I'd have to see what year it was, but the city has a standard policy for um the requirements of a traffic impact study. before a traffic impact study is prepared, they meet with the city engineer and the public works director to lay out the scope of that following with those guidelines that we have set in place. So those four intersections that were studied were the four intersections that were called out by um city's public works staff. Okay, got it. So Okay. um in regards to road steepness. So the existing roads in the subdivision, the ones that are already there that are already being used by people in that in that neighborhood are are up to 16 12% steepness. Correct. Correct. Yes. There's one road one section of uh East 21st Street that is 16 1.5%. Yeah. Okay. Um, so the addition of the subdivision doesn't create more steep roads. It's just basically a continuation of that already steep road. Yeah. And it's slightly comes down by 1%. It slightly comes down after that 16 and a half as it leads into the subdivision, but then the subdivision itself they uh none of the roads exceed 10%. Okay, got it. Um, in regards to I'm I'm glad you said this because it is important to to differentiate between the two. The comprehensive plan the or which is built by the state um is a guideline to build our code but is not

the code. So the comprehensive plan the city has a comprehensive plan. Okay. And then the city has the municipal code. So the comprehensive plan provides the guide work. Okay. That's what you know we have in there implementation measures, policies. From there it's used to then build your municipal code. Got it. And that's why a lot of the times when you see line verbiage in the comprehensive plan. It's a very general kind of lofty correct. Right. Yeah. Not clear and objective. Oh, you aim for it, but it may not be. Right. But in in the comprehensive plan, that's not the goal of the comprehensive plan, right? Yeah. Um, in regards to the sprinkler systems in the in in all the houses, is this was this mandated by the fire department in a site team meeting? Um it was it was brought up to us at the site team meeting and it is in Oregon fire code that is that anything any site that is accessed from a road that exceeds 10%. So then our uh engineering team put together a map that we use that shows every single city in the Dallas. It's colorcoded and shows us any road that is um basically 0 to 5 5 to 10 and 10 plus. We use that then and do the fact that the only road coming in is View Court which is in 13.5% like I said if there was a vacant lot off of ViewCourt that lot would also have to install a fire suppression system. Got it. Okay. So, and the reason I asked that is just to also understand the fire department is very aware of everything that this subdivision has plans for. It's not like the fire department hasn't looked at this. Correct. Yeah. And they will look at, you know, we will determine, you know, at the end that the final plans comply with fire code as well. Sure. Okay. Uh, okay. That's all the questions I have for now. Any Yeah, sure. Maybe this is not the right time to us, but

um I understand that we need housing. Um do we have um any idea how much these houses are going to be selling for or renting for? I mean, I would keep that. Um, I would I would leave that to that maybe a question for the applicant because we referenced 500,000 in here and I think it's um if you look at the topography um those are going to be some very expensive foundations throughout. So you then stack a house on top of it. I think I think you could be looking at you know 500 is probably not unrealistic. So no a lot of people can afford to buy those houses then. Um it it yeah it would be dependent on the market. I mean yeah about what square footage uh are these houses did did he did the developer say? Um I I I can't recall at this time. Yeah, we don't uh we we wouldn't use square footage for houses for any kind of review criteria for a subdivision. I just want to get some idea of you know how expensive these would be. Yeah. Okay. Um, Commissioner Portella or Pippenich, any questions for the staff before we start hearing testimony? Nope. Okay. Um, does the applicant wish to present the project? If so, please state your name and address for the record. This is um the applicant Jason Alfred if they care to to elaborate on their application from when they did the variance or anything like that. Yeah. Hi Jason Alfred 219 State Route 115. Um I don't really know what more to say here. I've got

Hey, I'm sorry, Chair Cornet. I I can't hear Mr. Alfred at all. Oh, yeah. We get a little Hello. Yeah, that's all right. Um, yes. I'm just not sure what more I can add as of right now. Um, really my plan this whole time has been to finish my grandfather's dream of making that uh a housing subdivision that he started back in I believe the 60s um when that was a dried up chair orchard. So he has passed away. I've taken it on and uh just trying to kind of follow everything and make it happen. So sure. Anybody's got any questions or Any any questions for the applicants? Well, I was just asking about um do you have any idea how much you know people are going to pay for these houses? Because um if it's not going to be affordable, very affordable, then my guess would be 500,000 and up. U which kind of goes with that neighborhood. There's been some sales in that neighborhood recently for close to that uh if not above. Um, and like he was saying, the uh the lots are going to require some work to make them buildable. And I'm going to really just kind of follow market value. What the market's asking is what I can follow. I'm sure not really much more I can do than that. If I could interrupt. Uh, sure, Darren. Go ahead. I'm sorry. Darren Ecman with AKS Engineering uh representing the applicant. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the meeting in person tonight and I apologize for that. I feel that the virtual uh meeting is not quite as as as good as being face to face. Um I I I wanted to elaborate on a few things

there that Jason had had noted along with Joshua as far as these are unique lots. you know, this is not a cookie cutter flat site subdivision. And um you know, we tried to arrange the lots to fit the topography where possible along with the roadways that had to fit the topography in order to bring the utilities in and such. as such, you know, that these are probably not going to be real um run of the common type homes or or real simple type homes. The foundation systems alone on some of them will be fairly complex and it might result in multiple levels of of a house. Um again, this is just the subdivision part, the the division of the land and installation of the utilities. the market will actually tell what size of home or cost of home will will be constructed in this development over time. Uh I think trying to estimate right now the cost or square footage uh would be a a real feat. Um if if there was nothing else Jason had to say, I'd like to go on to a few other points if that's okay. Yep, that sounds great. Okay, thank you. Thank you. So, I I first of all wanted to state that uh we're very supportive of the staff report. We appreciate the amount of effort that the city planning staff put in to the various phases of this development. the initial subdivision review the variance for the lot or block width and now uh addressing the concerns of the appellant and again can't say

enough for for how well they have done and we appreciate everything um you know the just really there's not a lot to add to the staff report I did want to maybe mention a few things or address a few things. The appellants was somewhat selective in how they looked at the the code or or brought pieces out. And I believe Joshua touched on that in his staff report as well. You know, there was some discussion about the lot sizes not being compatible with the neighborhood uh with the smallest neighborhood one being just under 7,000 square ft. Uh, our development only has seven lots that are less than 7,000 square ft and there's only two of them that are under 6,000 square ft. Our average lot size when you look at all 29 lots is over 8,200 square ft and the appellent states that the average lot size within the area and they don't really define what area or neighborhood is 8,000. So really with the exception of two lots, I feel that our development really is compatible and comparable to the existing neighborhood. Um, you know, there was concern about utilities and and water pressure and such. And when looking at the pressures that are available within the existing neighborhoods and then also within the development, there's more than adequate pressure to meet the the state requirements. Um, and the infrastructure will be adequate to carry the flows out to this area. The roadway concerns are or the roadway grades could be a concern, but recognize that getting to this site, you have to

traverse 800 to 1,000 ft of road that's, you know, steeper than our average road grade. We only have one section of road that's about 120 ft long from the current end of East 21st Street to the westerly intersection of Smith Ridge Loop that exceeds that's 15.6%. It's still less than the steepest part of East 21st Street and a couple percent greater than View Court. Once you get on the site, the majority of our roadways are less than 10%. Which is again le you know less than the average of the of the roads that have to be traversed to get to the site. uh as a condition of having steeper roads not just on our site but getting to the site. The applicant has recognized that you has embraced the fire department's uh demand uh for in-house residential fire sprinkler systems and all of our utilities will be sized accordingly to to address that. There was a couple questions uh uh that the commission had that I think Joshua maybe referred that we could address better or at least respond to the size and price I think is has been at least noted. Um I forget which commissioner but there was a concern about uh connecting the roofs to the city storm sewer system or storm drain system and that will be a challenge due to the topography. Um the city does not I do not I do not believe that the city requires that roof drains be connected to the storm drain system. Uh, as Joshua noted, there could be there will be a stubout to the lot. And

on some lots where the roadway or storm drain is lower than the lot development, it would definitely make sense for the um home builder who may not be the applicant, the subdivision applicant, or likely won't be the subdivision applicant, but for the home owner to connect to the storm drain system. In other situations where the lot sits at or below the road grade, notably maybe the north side of uh Summit Ridge Drive or Loop, um those homes likely will utilize some type of on-site dispersement system. Um, and there's many of them out there within the whether it's the Central Oregon storm water manual, the city of Portland manual, it it could be a dry well, it could just be a rock splash pad. A lot depends upon how much how large of an area is being dispersed. The Dallas doesn't get, you know, significant amount of rainfall such as like Portland does. Uh however, ours can be more intense at times due to the thunderstorm nature type of of events. I think the last thing had to do with the uh transportation or the traffic impact analysis. And yes, the the gentleman we hired was Doug Ferguson. He is a registered professional traffic operations engineer. uh that's is a specialty engineer uh within licensed by the state of Oregon. Um he's conducted numerous ones of these studies and the prior to even beginning the study he initially reaches out to the city engineer and they determine which intersections are going going to be looked at or examined and under what uh buildout dates. And

then after the report is done, that report is again reviewed and accepted by the city engineer. So it it's uh not just that the consultant can go hire somebody [Music] to weigh the scales in their favor. This there's due diligence involved and professional licensing uh on the line if if something is um incorrect. That's all I have. I'd be glad to answer any questions. And I appreciate the commission's time. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Eman? Any questions, Nick or Carrie? Okay. I do just want to say one thing. Um, just because it's been brought up. Um, we are, as I stated before, the hearing requires the commission to make us decisions based exclusively on the applicable criter on the applicable criteria. Home affordability and home size is not applicable criteria. So that's I I understand that's important that it's an important thought, but it is not a thought that applies here. Next, may we please hear from the appellent. When you come on up, please state your name and address. My name is Pam Danser. My name is Pam Danzer. I live at 2100 Claudia Lane and I am books person basically for the neighborhood. So that's why being was under my name. I think we first want to

doation and then I will go into on why we feel this is good. Okay. Thank you everyone. Um, I apologize the slide. Could we please have your full name and address for the record? Ted Valkov, 21102 Claudia Lane. I apologize for the fact the slides are presented as a neighborhood association. We have been really surprised by this development. It has happened very fast and we are still in the process of organizing ourselves. Um, the association is not formally registered yet. So for today, please accept these comments on behalf of me as an individual resident of the neighborhood. However, baked in the slides are many meetings our neighborhood that reflect the experience of many neighbors who have um come today and even more important many neighbors who are not here today have actually kind of been excluded and not recognized. May I proceed? Yeah. So, um actually first I wanted to to thank you guys for allowing somebody who is a relative newcomer to town. I have been here for only 20 years uh to speak on a matter that concerns uh family histories that probably go back centuries. I I am actually really privileged by this that you have given me this opportunity. Um, so thank you. This is part of the public process. I appreciate that. I do have some comments about the public process, however, that you may not like. I do have to warn you about this. I listened with great interest for

about an hour for basically an eulogy of this development under the municipal codes. And the municipal codes are very good. There is a lot of codes. Um I appreciate that the community development department spent an hour advocating for the applicant. Good use of taxpayer money all the codes that support this development. Uh but now we we as citizens often try to codify reality. If I can go to the next slide please. Next one please. I would jump like we have little time. We don't have an hour and a half. I think uh all we want to tell you is that reality has a way of coming in ask our codes regulations and us on the face. Um this is a luxury bluff home in California very similar to what is proposed and I'm sure this being California this had even more code reviews and expert certifications behind. uh disregarded the fundamental reality that we living there know um that steep slopes that are made of loose aggregate soils are unstable. They they really they actually metastable. They they are fine as long as you don't disturb them. But if you change something uh drainage uh water permeability uh water content they tend to come down. It's called transition to a new equilibrium state. That's how it looks like. Um next slide please. The applicant plans stamped by AKS engineering show an extensive area of about 10 home sites I believe that actually going to be built on engineered

field. This is engineered field uh made of uh very soft soil that will be just seem to be pushed onto the talis uh sorry uh scar. But I mean as you can see from this picture a similar development um you know you can try to compact uh this soft soil. I'm actually I'm sorry I forgot my so soil sample at home. I I was going to bring you a soil sample from the hill. It's a type C soil um to see how soft it is. Um you can try I mean you can you can drive a bulldozer on it during construction but give it enough time and that's what it's going to do. Um next slide please if I can. Um this is what the ridge uh Smith Ridge actually looks like. Um it's classified as a scar. Um in the time left, I don't want to go into a technical language. I am not a professional engineer anyway. But Darin, you and I have studied from the same textbooks and we have the same grounding in mathematics and physics. We both know what this is and how this kind of soils behave especially when they're disturbed. It's subjected to change in hydraology. Um I mean you can see a slipage plane uh right there as a result of basically this winter season. Um I can go to the next slide. I will show you how this happens. um you know this the scar it's covered with native vegetation that's pretty dense actually it's good vegetation uh but it's not adequate to hold our winter rains which come into onslaught it's less than Portland on average but you know it's like crossing a river that's on average 5 ft deep when you don't know how to swim it's not the averages that get is the deep part so Um this this just happened this

winter. Uh it's a particular spot. You can see how a fault starts to develop where the water runs. Uh you can see there is actually a little creek. If you um if you look to the side um if you were to see those pictures for yourself, you uh close up, you will see better. And in fact, if you actually bother to come on site, you really see it for yourself. As a matter of fact, it's easy to see. We can go to the next slide. Um, it's a dynamic slope and if you plan to excavate soft earth and put it on top of this to build 10 homes, what do you think is going to happen to this home? And who do you think is going to pay for it when it happens? That's all I have to say. Um, with regard to next slide, please. I'm sorry for driving this far. I can walk over. I have to carry. Okay. Oh my gosh, I don't know how much time we have. Um, I appreciate that actually the city itself has gone through the effort of studying its geology and identifying zones of geological hazard but by no means they have looked at everything. They had no reason to look at me. I think the only data actual scientific data we have on the subject matter is probably based on USGS surveys. Don't know if somebody from state has done soil physical testing of the physical properties and has looked at time histories of drainage and hydrarology. Uh you really cannot separate hydrarology from soil stability in cells like this. It has to be studied as a as an integral system. Uh but you know we we do have maps on the state side that identify this as a risk

area. You know granted these are luxury homes like mine. Uh when my home was built there was quite a contention over whether it should build be built but at the end of the day it was just one rich guy building a home on the bluff. We put a lot of concrete on the foundation. So who cares if it goes down but it's not just one rich guy anymore. Maybe it's 30 rich guys or or 20. So you're starting to create a significant hazard. Uh as you know with once landslides um if a major slippage develops this is not like a stop process where you can fix it. Uh this process tend to uh have positive feedback built into them. So they amplify over time. Uh MCMC is right under the steep part of the ridge and many more con. I just would like to think about this in the context of reality coming knocking home despite all our code reviews and regulations. Um, next slide please. So um, we have actually a lot of information to present it. We cannot really condense it and like I said we just kind of learned about this and we have not organized ourselves properly. But I'm raising some issues to your attention that have been skirted and passed in silence, relatively speaking. This is actually what these streets look like when you drive them. I took them from my car myself. Um because of the wide angle of the camera, they actually don't look as bad as they really are. But my point is simple. Um, nothing has happened so far because there are only really three people driving there and we know to stop at every single corner because you cannot see what's coming around the corner. You

just cannot by the time you see it, you cannot stop. Um, this is much closer than it looks on the picture. The intersection comes right where the arrow is and it's about 20 ft away. Even you're obeying the city limit, which most of us are. I can't guarantee the new residents will, you cannot stop. As simple as that. Uh, by the way, we are lucky that there are no cars on the street that time, but most residents parked on the street. So, actually, you room to maneuver to avoid collision are small. Um, my neighbor's little granddaughter drives her little pink car right there. You cannot see her when you come down to pass. How do you feel about that if this was your apologies if you cannot hear me? Okay. Uh, next one. But that's not the real problem. Actually, this is uh coming down the other way on 21st. Um, nice sunny day. It doesn't look like this in the winter. uh you simply cannot stop on that hill when you come down if there is snow or if there is ice. It's not a matter of only if there is ice. That is just the reality of living upon this hill. Um the top of the hill is inaccessible during snow and ice. And even if the city comes to clean it, it's still inaccessible. Uh the few of us who live up there now know better. We stay home. I have snowshoes. I leave my car by dry hollow and snowshoe here. Uh I don't know how 60 or 30 new residents maybe with kids are going to make it, especially if they're not familiar with Oregon driving conditions. Uh if you wonder about my

car, it has all it takes. Uh and nowhere in the city actually I have winter problems like I have on that hill. So it is an area that deserves attention. Um next please. So um I actually started with a lot of problems. Maybe I apologize if we can go back to this to the table that listed the hards and what uh yes thank you. What we tried to do as a group in the last few days was to organize our knowledge and our concerns into a more coherent form to identify hazards and nuisances arising from this development. Uh we have created categories that are listed there on the left a brief summary and the possible consequences from proceeding to develop despite these hazards. As you can see, right or wrong, we are not experts. Um, but we perceive there is a significant liability in terms of loss of life, injury, loss of property, loss of health by residents, either existing residents or the new residents who will live there. Uh, I will let you examine this at leisure. Um, like I said, there is a lot of issues we have identified. That's all we want to say at this stage. Uh if we go down now to the slide that talks about um is next next please. Next uh actually stop here for a moment. I apologize. Um previous one uh somebody asked why connect to the city storm system. I mean this is one of

the reasons why uh in the winter if you don't if you collect the runoff naturally um and by the way the the the grading plan submitted for this development does not study drainage really it just shows grade changes it doesn't look at movement of water you're basically going to turn some driveways into seasonal crits that will drain into the neighboring properties water by itself is annoying Combine water with steep hills of low soil and you get California during landslide season. Uh next please. Um we appreciate the effort that has been put to prepare the subdivision plan but we frankly don't see how practicable driveways and safe yards can be created with this layout. presented. Um, and I think that should be looked a little bit more in detail than just being glossed over as beyond the codes or compatible with relatively loose worded regulations. Now, if we go to the next slide, um, we talk about fire. Uh obviously there is a risk of fire in every home built in central Oregon but this presents a little bit something a little bit different actually. Um as you saw from the pictures the hill has really heavy vegetation and you cannot really abate it because if you try to get on this hill during the during the vegetation season the soil is through crumbly. you cannot get uh a worker on the soil to safely go and remove the vegetation. So the vegetation will likely to say this is not vegetation on property. This is

vegetation on the headscar itself. Um this can easily ignite. The few of us who live there know better than barbecue in July the 4th. I don't know if the new residents will know that once the grass catches the residential sprinklers required by cold is are not going to do you much good. You know how things burn. You saw it twice this summer in town. That happens every every fire season. action. I just want to remind you that downhill the wind is going to push this fire down a configuration trajectory straight into the sub uh Northwest POD substation and the BPA public transmission infrastructure. I just want to remind you of that. So my point here is that we said a lot of good things about the development but we skirted the real issues about them because our codes don't quite cover them. our hands. I would like you to invite you to think about for a moment before we approve this. Now, why do we bring this up specifically? If we can go to the next slide. Lots of problems. I'm sorry for being the guy who talks about problems. Nobody likes to talk about problems. Um the problems have deep roots. Um, for example, having a loop road there pushes so many home sites onto the scarf. This loop road becomes a drainage for the runoff that channels it into neighboring properties. And fundamentally, this is designed with ignorance of the local conditions. It could be I I don't want to sound critical. I apologize uh Jason. Uh I know this means a lot to your family, but but perhaps a little bit more experience brought into this development. Thank you. Um I think

fundamentally the the strategy that has been adopted with this application is to approve this procedurally and problems with regarding to soil stability, fire and so just just kick them down the camp the engineers dealing with the individual lots and and they will fix it lot by lot. But these problems are not specific to lots. They're integral to the layout, the entire layout. And you cannot just sweep them under the carpet with the layout as it is and and hope that they can be resolved by building codes or by the engineers on a lot by lot basis. That's that is the point we want to make. We like I said, nobody likes problems. So we fought as a neighborhood association to actually try to look at this from the developer perspective and offer some solutions that hopefully will show you that we are not really trying to derail uh the applicant property rights to develop a nice neighborhood up there. We can go to the next slide please. We want to offer some possible solutions for consideration to the planning commission. So that you're not kind of caught between a rock and a hard place where you either have to deny this development completely or approve it also. So what this solutions could look like if we can go to the next slide. Um big part of the problem is having this loop road up there. um having a solution organized along cudo sax would actually avoid a lot of this fundamental systemic problems that are baked into the current layout because I want to remind the planning commission if you approve this application as is these lots are recorded and then you cannot change

anything about it you have to live with the problems of landslide fire traffic hazards that you've baked in with the layout. On the other hand, it's relatively easy to fix problems early. I mean, as as a research engineer who worked on problems that are not in the textbooks, um my motto has always been keep it simple, fix problems early. Find the problems early and fix them while there is time. So, this is one possible way you could go about it that would alleviate I'm going to skip over the next slide, but this layout just is a little bit less aggressive. doesn't push homes so far onto the scar and I think probably mitigates uh as a proper engineering review and geotechnical review is done that probably would alleviate many of the landslide and some of the fire and traffic hazards. We can go to solution element B. Um I think it was a very good testimony and it was very good to see a comprehensive traffic study, but the traffic study look at traffic density. It kind of bypass the fact that this site is simply not accessible at certain times of the year. Uh most likely due to the steep grade and weather conditions. Uh a solution, it is not simple but is a practical solution is to provide a second collectors on the eastern side of the property. extend east 21st and connect it to a major collector. This way, if it gets impossible to drive and stop on view car, people can go in the other direction. It also alleviates some of the collision hazards that are just

inherent in the landscape itself of this area. um solution element C uh is maybe to have we we talked a little bit about the lot size. I don't want us to get caught into the minutia, but having some lots a little bit bigger is going to make it possible for the residents to have practicable driveways and safe yards. We're not coming at you from the perspective of let's try to make even more expensive homes here. Let's just make a nice livable safe development which would truly honor the memory of Donell Smith whom I had as a great neighbor for 15 years. Thank you. Thank you, Jed. I just want to touch base on some of our responses to what the staff report wrote up site suitability and geology geologic hazards. Um even though there has been an established joint management agreement with Wasco County does not preclude ignoring the existing land hazard zones. And with the adoption of this 2010 uh geological study of the city of the Dallas, not a comprehensive study, doesn't address all areas of the city. Um it city should be more proactive in addressing areas of extreme slopes over 30%. and those areas that have scar tent and slope erosion that excuse me slope eroding that is already defined uh

is we can't ignore it just because it isn't in the 2010 study proposes the proposal gives us uh areas of a public road that are in what's deemed a hazard zone by county and the state duties of the local government, the state agencies and the land owners in a slide hazard area. They need to reduce the risk of serious bodily injury or death that will result from landslides and develop in its dunamines areas. Um, we see that there is a physical restraints permit that is required by the city, but the preliminary approval requirement of a physical restraints permit is too late in the process determine whether the proposed development is appropriate for the site. We feel that this type of a study should be done at the time of preliminary approvals. So that the numerous issues that when accurately addressed will substantially and dramatically change what happens to the development of this site and its impact on the existing land and ability to mitigate the threat life and property from these landslides and erosion issues. We would like to see a sightsp specific ge geologic impact study that lays a foundation for appropriate development of the site minimizing impacts to and allowing for preservation of the existing unstable slopes.

Evaluation of hazards to persons or property upon the adjacent uh to the area uh of the adjacent to the area of the development may create um um we strongly believe that the proposed development will have a detrimental effect on the land and the applicant has not taken reasonable steps to reduce these adverse impacts. Relying on a physical constraints permit after site approval is creating a condition where critical information needed in the planning stages of a project project is revealed after the fact. Transparency of the process goes away when the tools used to evaluate and determine land's decisions become ministerial ministerial actions as the city of the Dallas code determined. You want to change want changes that show the proposed site plan mitigates possible negative and or irreversible effects upon this topography and it should be done earlier in this planning process. There should not be determination of whether these lands can be safely built on particularly when we're talking about a public roadway to a point where we've already designed location of the roadway. Um, in compliance with the development standards and the development feasibility, there is a part of the code says construction drawings and specifications for public improvements are not required prior to subdivision application approval, but are required final prior to final subdivision plat review. allows a developer to seek subdivision application approval prior

to investing in public improvement engineering. Well, the cost of providing a comprehensive construction set of drawings for a development on 7.2 2 acres in which onethird of the site consists of sloped air areas greater than 25% is small in comparison to the amount of money needed to physically built physically build the subdivision. analysis, assessment and examination of the land's potential and also its inherent restrictions of such um to such an extent is part of a due diligence that an experienced and responsible developer goes through. Responsible development should be supported even encouraged by the city to ensure safe, appropriate and efficient use of the land. Now it's in specific staff findings that were referred to in the staff report. I just have a few areas where code has not been addressed or at least we as the appellants do not understand how the code hasn't been addressed. I mean, finding number 10, you're saying that the extension of 21st Street is sufficient. Well, the code states that we need to extend to the east property line of the proposed site development so that future development can occur. That area that is to the east is in the urban growth

boundary. Many years ago, it appears that there was tenative extensions of East 21st Street and this particular application shows a loop road which doesn't even extend utilities to the east property line. Uh along with the extension of East 21st Street, city's criteria of uh of the existing streets to coordinate with the potential future expansions within the urban growth boundary are not fully developed. See the street system itself is a reduced rideway and does not meet standard 54 foot rideway of the Dallas resident residential street standards matrix. We feel that criterion has not been met and we don't understand why there was no the the staff report did not say state that it is required for the development to send East 21st to this property line. nor does it explain why standard 54 ft rightway is has been reduced to 50 ft. Um on this uh finding number 12 which addresses the temporary turnarounds. we look closely at the layout, we uh see that the location of the turnarounds are impractical because they're running into a 2 to1 slope that's holding up

lots. Look at one of the slides that shows the layout. While you're pulling that up, may I take a moment and use restroom, please? Do you mind? Sorry, Sher Cornet. It's Jonathan. I can't hear if anybody's talking. It just hears like I just hear silence. Jonathan, we're taking a break while Josh pulls up the site plan and the uh chair had to take a momentary break. We'll resume in a moment. Thank you, Chris. Oh, that's that's that's perfect.

Okay, please continue. Okay, you're on finding 12. We look at this Grady plan that we have a call out for a fire turnaround, a standard fire turnaround per Oregon fire statute. And one, it is partially on a piece of property that is not part of the subdivision. and two, it goes right up into a 2 to1 slope that is being excavated so that that ridge road or Smith ridge loop and through. You can see that 2:1 slope carries all the way over to lot four and nowhere along that line. current layout and one even put a fire turnaround that meets great. The fire truck can't turn around on anything higher than a 5% grade I believe but the statute says state statute foring fire. Sorry, can you I'm not seeing what you're talking about. Where where are you on this plant map right now? If Yeah. See where it says conceptual finished grade? Yes. Okay. So that is the existing house there. Yeah. So there's a small dashed line that shows a turnaround. Um requirements are 28 foot uh radius and I believe it's like 75 either way. And you can see those darker lines show a two to one slope. So they have cut into the side of the hill there, placed that road at a 1% and that creates a huge BM and a fire truck can't turn around on a burm and

that extends all the way to the end of phase one. So there is no way fire turnaround can be placed there with the way this plan is being presented. I guess our our basic premise is that we're not against developing the site. I mean it's a prime location. It's absolutely gorgeous up there. Point is that this is not responsible development of the site and there are certain areas of the code that we feel are not being met. Again, that's what from what it appears is how this can get kicked back to the engineer and developer so that they can make a plan that is more realistic. Um, if we look here between lots 29 and 19, got a extension that shows an easement. This actually needs to be per code a street that extends to the eastern property line that extends all utilities to the eastern property line for any future development because property adjacent is within the urban growth boundary. Therefore, at some point in the future, it does have the possibility of being developed and it is the developer's responsibility to extend utilities and infrastructure which would include the roadway. Okay. Where where does it say that in the code?

is written. Again, we put this together very quickly. So I have looked at the findings that I am bringing these into um coordination with may not necessarily be the exact code and I don't I I'm would have to ask. Yeah, I think you're referencing 1065030B. At least that's what your document said. And the the statement where required by the approving authority, public street improvements may be required through a development site, yada yada yada. Um, so may is it it is not required, but it does say may be required. I guess that's what we're finding is there's a lot of verbiage in this code that is subject to interpretation. Um, which you know, we understand that that's that's the way it is. But I don't I honestly don't know if there are other places within the code that address specifically extension of utilities and infrastructure. It's a standard practice that utilities and infrastructure is extended so that the property next door can actually develop once that comes into fruition. [Music] Um this will go a little bit further in addressing the fire issues. Uh fire suppression system. We are all for that. Um but it again as Ted

brought up it doesn't address what happens when there is a brush fire on a slope that is greater than 25%. or when there's a medical emergency during an ice or snow event and emergency vehicles can't get up that uh steep grade. Now, I realize there are homes up there. It is a steep grade, but we're adding um additional homes. So, you're adding additional hazard potentials. you feel that a uh sub substantive review by the developers engineer so that he can provide a plan that meets the code requirements be required prior to planning approvals. Uh we feel that any that bulk of these conditions that are being set on this will end up with a significantly different uh layout and we as the neighborhood would like to see as a part of transparency in the process what that would be look what that would look like prior to you know construction being started out there. Um, physical constraints permit is is interesting because it's brought up after most of the planning decisions are made. the physical constraints permit. Um while we believe that the detail that is required as part of the physical constraints permit should be required earlier in the process. Um because the solid foundation for responsible development of the site

is dependent on finding if these soils are actually able to withstand and hold kind of development including the public roadway. Now we have not brought up a slide that shows a development superimposed upon the u land use apps that are available through Wasco County. And those maps clearly show that the areas are subject to significant movement due to either soil or steep slopes. So it's not just the steep slopes, it's the actual makeup of the soil on the site that are subject to movement. Again, we understand that the Dallas code doesn't cover it, but doesn't make practical sense that planning department and the city ignores vital information that is a part of government's process to make approvals on the site with the existing layout. Um if there was a physical constraints permit done earlier in the process potential hazards and modifications could be made earlier in the process and then be alleviated at the uh as major changes in the end. There is uh as part of the ministerial actions this whole process of this additional information and how it is being evaluated and how it applies to the original subdivision approvals is

not very transparent because it's in-house. There's no public um availability to it. It's something that and seeing that some of the development up there has been done with minimal oversight. It it it makes us worry as neighbors that development is going to be done there and there's going to be some significant um issues when houses are put on those slopes, particularly over the slopes. The way again the road location is is of a concern because it does run through hazardous areas. Um again our our uh for finding 16 the joint management agreement between Wasco County and the Dallas delegates land use authority to the city but it does not preclude the city to incorporate the county and existing state information regarding any geological hazards that have been identified. Even though the site is not identified in the 2010 geologic hazards study, it does not mean that a hazard does not exist on the site. Ignoring this critical information questions the integrity of the whole planning process because the eventual outcome could be very detrimental to the city. We believe that again hazardous areas need to be incorporated more into the proposed plan. Can't be building houses off a

slope where the grading plan states that we're just going to put anything that we've excavated create the roadway offside and create structural fill out of it. It's uh and that is stated on the grading plan. I'm bringing a grading plant. If you look at the areas particularly on the north side of the site where the outlined in a curvy line. Um it states there, you can't read all of it, but it says that basically uh excavation from the roadway may be placed there. Excess material may be placed as structural fill. Um you've got slopes there that are heading way south and you're just going to toss some extra dirt out there. Um it it doesn't seem that we've put a lot of thought into how we are developing the site. Again, it comes back to responsible development. Yeah, this site needs it's prime for development. There's no question about it. But needs to be responsible development where we're not exacerbating existing hazard area. Um the other issue that we have is with the annexation feel that both phases of this project are integral to each other to ensure the finished development conforms to the approved preliminary p excuse me the approved preliminary site plan. Annexation of that second parcel needs

to be done prior to construction of phase one beginning. Right now we've got a couple different uh statements that show when this annexation is required to be done and I guess we just need some clarity in that and we would like to see it earlier in the process and not again having it done such that after one of the areas states that it needs to be annexed a as uh before connection to utilities. And if we are at that point, that means that there's significant construction that's already been done on the site. And are we then what happens if it doesn't annex? Are we going to have infrastructure there that can't be used because that site can't be annexed in? I mean, I don't know what you know, it's your annexation process. We just feel that as the both sites are integral to each other and creating the loop road system as it stands now whether that is how final pay layouts end up I you know side the point we feel that it needs to be the annexation needs to be earlier in the process. Um now with specific issues on the municipal code here I do have actual u code numbers. Um the traffic impact statement that was provided states that all future streets should be constructed to the city of the Dallas requirements and the modern engineering standards. The proposed

roadways designed the neighborhood street which averages 150 to 500 vehicles and this one is 302. So it's right in the middle. This neighborhood street has a standard 54t wide rideway. Proposal has 50oot rideways which is below the city standard. The evaluation of operational and safety standards in the TIS report to not fully incorporate the effects of these steep grades on the existing streets and how hazardous the streets become during a rain, ice, or snow event. Inability of vehicles to stop in these hazardous conditions have resulted in damages to vehicles and property. I know there's nothing that can be done with the existing street. What I am saying is that we need to look at how to minimize that impact to those downhill. And it it is um again someone like Ted said, someone moving in there is not aware is going to end up in somebody's garage is it you're impossible. I mean, we have neighbors who have hummers cannot go down the hill. So, it's, you know, it's something that is a reality. Yet, the traffic report did not address that and it it's it's unable to really address it because it is something that is essentially sight specific and there's no part of code that has that verbiage in it. Oh, okay. We talked about how we don't feel that the

fire proposed fire returns are code because they are on steep sloped areas. Okay. So in order to assure eventual continuation or completion of reser of um extension of roads again I guess it's a may instead of a will. So uh extension of 21st Street to the east is is not being done. and they say it's not readily or easily done uh due to topography, but it's the same kind of topography that's throughout the site. So, if you can put roads on the site as it stands now and put houses down the hill in being proactive in grading a street that is more accessible and will provide emergency access and and uh any kind of emergency vehicles to anybody who lives up on that new project, you know, is again something that the city should take into consideration. ation. Okay. So here the location of streets in a development shall not preclude development of adjacent properties. Street South conformo shall conform to planned street extensions identified in the DA's transportation master plan and or provide for continuation of the existing street pattern or network in the surrounding areas. Now this is straight out of

uh code. So there is maybe some definite statements there that say that yes, we need to extend that street all the way to the east. Are you just reading off of this? This this public comment that was submitted if it's the one that was submitted today. Yeah. Smith Ridge subdivision Alfred property. It has the first response, neighborhood responses, site suitability, and geological hazards. Right. Okay. What where are you in this? Oh, I'm at the end. I know, but what did you just read in regards to the clear on page nine and it is um you're looking at drainage facilities is in the middle of that page. Mhm. One of the things that I didn't really touch on, but below that is location, grades, alignments, and widths and and which is J and one under J is location of streets in a development shall not preclude development of adjacent property. One of the things uh regarding drainage in the water runoff is um we've got areas in that grading plan that do not show how water going down a 9.6% 6% grade is going to be hot prior to crossing an intersection of the access easement for the lots that are up on the top which would be the south property and also that access easement is to the properties to the south. Okay. um street drainage. Uh if there's a curb on that uh just says 24 foot wide pavement, but there needs to be a curb put on that

access easement roadway so that water is not just pouring off into uh side of the roadway. What access ement you talking about? Smith Ridge. We need to bring up the It's the access ement to the uh lots to the south. All the streets all the streets have curbs and drains. Yeah, but this is an access easement, not there's no specific curbage that states curbs. So, it's a 30-foot easement that's between the lots 12 and 11 and it's got a 9 grade plus. So, going down that, we've got a volume of water coming down. That's all going to end up in lot 11. Now you can see that whole area there that is hatched is steep slopes. So lots 10 and 11 will take the brunt of whatever water runoff comes down the proposed roadway at a 9.6. I think that road's already in there. That goes to one of the orchards. Well, they've regraded it for the grading plan. Yes, the road's in there, but not in that configuration. And this allows for 24 foot wide pavement. Pavement is an imperous surface. So any water that hits it needs to be directed one way or another or it's just going to create mudslide. But the the subdivision has a storm drainage system up there. Right. But this is not connected to it. If there are no curbs, need to go. Well, you can see down there, there's one little manhole that right at the east end of lot 10. Okay, we've got slopes

that start at the east side of phase one that are running down the street at 9.6%. There is no captioning of that water prior to the intersection with the packet. Plus, you're going to add water that's coming down the axis because again, it is an impervious surface. Okay. Is is there anything in this plan that says there's going to be curbs on there? No. And there is really minimal access shown there. Uh I see that across from the actual uh turnaround lots 16 and 17 is the access to the property the orchard to the south. You need to realize that that incoming roadway going to be taking harvest vehicles through there. Are they going to be able to make that turn on 24 foot wide pavement? something that should be looked into. At least these types these things were not uh I don't believe they were looked at as part of the development of this layout. Well, 24 feet wide. That would be a two lanes that they should be able to maneuver. Well, it's a it's a you know, I I I am not the cherry orchard person, so I can't really state that it will or will not work. I'm just saying that the turning radius there is hard to to fathom. You bring that back up again, Josh. Another area that is of uh it it it really doesn't matter. It it

we can look here. Um the turn is a 90° turn from going north going east on the Smith Bridge loop. That particular corner there makes it very difficult for any kind of fire access to make that turn. standard for fire have a radius of 28 and a curb radius there is probably going to be around 22 maybe um and you only have the width of the pavement there usually in that type of a configuration you would have what's called a knuckle or uh you would have to make a layout where that is not such a sharp turn. One of the things here that is in your code addresses the center line radia of these curves and the standard is 80 ft center line radius for local street and that curve is less than 50. Look back up on the but it's not lab triangle. Okay. No, go up where it says radius is 37.5 ft at the center line. Code says that the radius needs to be 80 ft. Now, I don't know what the radius is on the other side in phase two, but I do see that there is no 50- foot tangent piece that allows for a 90° intersection with eastern intersection of ridge loop

and so we look at this and think that more thought or due diligence on the process of both the developer and the engineer need to be put into this layout so that it more conforms with what is actually feasible on such a tricky piece of land and what also supports development in the area. Like I said, we're not against developing the area. We just want to see that it's developed properly, responsibly, and takes into consideration all the elevation changes in there because it's not just the north end of the site that is steep. There are steep slopes all throughout the site that uh we really don't see how the engineer proposing to structurally make those sound. Um you're you're going to put in a 2 to1 slope, but what are 2 to1 slope on lot 8 includes any kind of development of that lot. um can't run a driveway up that if you put the house on top. So again, our premise is that we aren't against development of the site. We just want to see more responsible development of the site taking in consideration specifics of site geology, the specifics of site terrain and essentially pres preserving the northern slope area so that doesn't end up coming down the hill. Thank you. Uh yeah.

So my my general question here is, you know, this this is an appeal to an application for a subdivision. Do you based off, you know, your your last one of your last sentences, you're not against a subdivision, you just want it to be designed and considered differently. Correct. Okay. You want to see that that Yes. Sure. So, do you have any specific conditions that we can reasonably ask the developer that we can reasonably and legally ask the developer that you would like to that you would like to add? It has to be legal. Yeah. And that's why at the end of this, those are the only specific code areas that I was able to find within um to base any kind of let's look into this further so that we make something that's more reasonable and more efficient use of the site. Um those are the what with what I supplied in this neighborhood responses the last part of that area the only code areas that specifically say yes the code requires 54 foot rightway and this proposal goes a 50 foot rideway okay yes the code requires such and such requirements for alignments and curve radi and this proposal does not okay what What else? I'm sorry. I mean, the we did this is a lot to digest in an hour as I'm sure it was for you to write. So, but we have to do this tonight. So, well, I if I could have line item conditions about

what exactly it is. Okay. Let me look through here. Okay. So, so what I have right now is turning radius. We tal, you know, we'll we'll ask the the applicant and the city about that after we hear testimony from everybody. Also, the 54 foot rideway, right? Okay. Fire turnarounds, the hammerhead one, hammerhead turnarounds. Okay. And and that needs to be if that is put in place as opposed to the through street like as opposed to Smith Road going all around. This is currently approved. That is a requirement of phase one because phase two is not guaranteed. But the the developer can put in that entire road if they choose. Yeah, you can once the city annexes that piece of property. Sure. Which they may wait they may wait until that all happens. It's important to understand that this part of the process is about is about drawing lines on the ground. Nothing is being built. Um this is about establishing where exactly these parcels and these tax lots and these roads will be. reestablish these roads in the areas that they are located currently. Maybe they can't be built. Then what happens? Maybe future information that comes from the uh physical constraints permit shows that that soil is there's no way we can be putting houses off there. There's no way we can be putting a structurally stable roadway. Well, I mean, if that happens, then that happens. Then then then then it's because what we're proposing is that this we these things should be looked at beforehand so that it doesn't happen like that. Okay. So that it's it's Sure. But I guess I guess to what end? You'd rather have it happen now? I'd

rather sooner than later. Than later so that the layout could be changed to accommodate the physical constraints of the site. If this final Josh, if this final subdivision is approved, can the final layout can this layout be changed? No. Okay. So 109040060 A2. The final plat shall substantially conform to the approved tentative subdivision plat. So they can't take this and change it. Then it would be coming back through this whole entire process. Sure. But I mean they can change it and go back through this whole entire process. They could they could do that. Yeah. new application. Yeah. So, let's say the developer, you know, let let's say we get through tonight, whatever it's going to be, and the developer says, you know what, I really took into consideration some of the things that the appellant said. I am going to do a physical constraints study now. Uh, I'm going to do this other geohazard stuff now, even though it's not required by the city. Um, okay. Turns out this isn't going to work out the way I want it to. I'm going to rethink this whole idea and I'm going to come up with a new plan. They can do that. It's completely their prerogative. That'd be their prerogative and it would be a brand new application. Brand new application, but it's not impossible. It's just more time. Yeah. Other stuff. Okay. Yeah. And a reason a physical constraints permit is not required until after the subdivision is approved is because that physical con you're you're going to engineer the plan that you are getting approved on paper. Right. So right um okay so it can be changed. Yes I guess in that yes it can be changed. Yeah back through the process. Yep. Absolutely. So it can be changed. The these lines aren't being burned into the ground for eternity, right? But okay, that is I

guess it can be changed. So in in in uh response to your question um under the 101060 street requirements, E is orderly development. It says to provide for orderly development of adjacent properties, public streets installed concurrent with the development of a site shall be extended through the site. Now again the code is it says different things in different areas but here it says it shall be extended through the site to the edge of the adjacent properties in accordance with the following. Temporary dead ends created by this requirement to extend the street improvements to the edge of the adjacent property shall always be installed at the turnaround, which is what the fire department talked about. But it states here that yes, who will be extending public roadways, public infrastructure to the far reaches of the property. Okay. So, so just to clarify that is more a you looking for a clarification on that finding in the saying that this site plan does not meet that particular statute in the so it this application is for phase one and phase two right? Yeah. So if you go back to the plat map it's the whole circle and then it goes east 21st goes down. But you're saying you see that east 21st goes down. And it says that that is a utility easement to access public uh substation down the hill. Okay. So you're saying that East 21st needs to go down the hills as well as the any utility. Sure. That need to be extended. Sure. All part of the infrastructure. Well, he can only go as far as his property line. That next That's right. But he's not going to the property line.

No, they've got a right of way uh dedicated there. Oh, that's not a Josh. Can you bring that back up again, please? Yeah, you can see where this is a private access and public utility ease. That is not public access. That is not a right of well yeah public for the easements for the utilities and so forth and an extension says that you need toend all public roadways to the far reaches of the property boundary. Okay. You're just saying Hitley should have a finished road up to the boundary. Finished roadway along with utilities to site. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Um this is again for the record 10.10.060 street requirements paragraph D. And what it actually says is public streets installed concurrent with development shall be extended through the site to the edge of the adjacent properties in accordance with following. So extended through the site um there is that loop is the site first of all is just the two parcels that are the subject of this application. Parcel 3 is not part of this application. Right? That's the white part on the right of the screen. Correct. Um so there is the loop there does extend through the site. Um the pavement isn't going to the property boundary um because it's not necessary to access the site but the street connectivity is

provided with that access easement so that when that adjacent property does develop there's access available. And you'll note that it is a 50 foot wide easement. So it matches your street standards. So that it's it's not a stretch to read the code standard to require precisely what is being proposed. You've got pavement through the site and an access easement to the edge of the site that matches your street standards. Okay. Can you read that code again? Yes. It's um public streets installed concurrent with the development of a site shall be extended through the site to the edge of the adjacent properties uh in accordance with the following temporary dead ends. Uh there's not a temporary dead end proposed here. Um in order to assure the eventual continuation or completion of the street, reserve strips may be required. Um here you didn't require reserve strip because there's an easement an access easement proposed to accommodate the future street extension. And then the last provision is for drainage facilities that isn't relevant here. So you do have a street system that is uh extended through the site with access to the property boundary. Okay. It doesn't say access property boundary. It says to the edge of the adjacent property. Correct. And this street system is extended to the edge of this the access. Yeah, the street system is extended to the property boundary between the pavement and the access easement. Private property. Therefore, that should be there's nothing in the code that distinguishes public or private. Okay. How go ahead as public street? That is the public requirement.

any again the the the site plan proposes a street system that extends through the site and provides access to the property boundary to accommodate future extension of the street system. This is in the section regarding uh street improvements. Right. So, do we have any information of the future plan transportation system? I was unable to locate a uh transportation system plan for the city of Dallas. Yeah. So, I can speak to that. There is no extension of East 21st Street at all included in the transportation system plan. Transportation plan located. Yeah, I was just checking on the internet. I had a difficult time finding it as well. Um, we have it available. Um, it's on hand. Um, I just don't have it pulled up here. It's on my um, I would have to remote in and I can't do it right now. I have it readily available on my desktop, but I don't have it here. Okay. Um, talk to me. Sorry, M Mr. Chair. One other um, element I wanted to point out as far as the street standards. Um this is just in the staff report in the discussion of um chapter 10.6.050 I believe that was brought up in uh the testimony. Um let me find this real quick. 10.06.050.030 030. Uh, paragraph B, it says, "Where required by the approving authority of

the city, public street improvements may be required through a development site to provide for the logical extension of an existing street network. If you look at the site plan, the existing street network is TW East 21st Street to the west of this site. There is no street network existing or proposed to the eastern boundary of this site. So the connectivity standards in your code do not require paving all the way to the eastern boundary because there's no existing street network there to connect to and none proposed or planned. Okay. So that that provides further context for the the street layout and connectivity standards. Okay. Um, how about since we're talking about streets, how about the 54 ft rightway as opposed to the 50ft proposed? Yeah, I can speak to that. So, the Dallas Municipal Code, as mentioned, 54 ft wide for this neighborhood street. However, in 2017, the city adopted their update to the transportation system plan at that time. 50 foot is the standard due to the fact that that was adopted after the fact. 50 foot is the standard and it gets approved all the time with subdivisions. Any type of subdivision gets through. Basically, we give an individual the opportunity 54 feet or 50 feet, but 50 feet is that minimum per the transportation system plan. Okay. If the transportation plan is not available to those online, it hasn't been incorporated into the standards that are outlined in the municipal code. How can that override? So, the um transportation system plan is available at city hall. it it's not available online. Not everything is yet, although it seems like everything is, but it is available for anyone who wants to look at the transportation system plan and city is working on getting it online. And there's a doctrine of legal

interpretation where two code provisions conflict, the later approved prevails as a more recent statement of the state of legislative intent by the governing body. So the the 54 remains as a typo in the code but the later approved is the TSP. So that would prevail over any conflicting provisions that were enacted earlier. Okay. Um and is the TSP just assumed to be referenced in the development of this plat? I mean it's not like in a the TSP is used when developing this plat. I mean, I'm sure Darren can speak more to that. I mean, he looks at Yeah, it's used and reviewed and these applications go to a site team meeting, uh, you know, site pre-application meeting before all development applications. At that time, we we take a look at the, you know, at what's being proposed. We provide a set of notes that mention what the minimum requirement is. If it also gets to a point where it goes to an engineering phase and it does not meet what the requirements are, that would be a change that has to occur. Yeah, I think there's a question from Jonathan. Uh, yes, City attorney Jonathan Cara. Hi, Chair Cornet. Uh, I just want to mention um the the transportation assistant plan is is pretty readily available on the city's website. Um, all I I'm looking at it now. All I did was uh go to the dowels.org, go to documents, and I just search the word transportation. and it's the first and only link says TSP transportation plan. Um, and it's the 2017 copy developed by Angela Planning Group. Um, for what it's worth also, uh, the transportation system plan is mentioned

throughout Title 10 and specifically throughout Title 10, chapter 10 or 10.10.060, 060, which is street requirements. Um, and so not only is it mentioned in the very chapter that we're talking about addressing street requirements, it's also readily available on the city's website. We would like to h, you know, honestly, I'd love if it was hyperl, but we are working our way through things. So, okay. Okay, great. Um, going along with that, um, the turning radius, is that something that is that is um adequate in the way the code is written or does that need to be adjusted? So that that information there's something there's a mention about an 80 foot um I would maybe get the I would need to get some more clarification on that. Um, like I said, this has been through a this been through site plan review or it's been it's been through site team. Um, yeah, this this this reference here um if it does not I mean what's that Darren? Can you address this standard the uh radius here? for the 37 A2. I I don't know if I can very well uh Joshua or not. Um this was the the radius that was proposed and actually it mimicked the radius of the roadway that currently serves Mr. Valkov's property up there at the end of Claudia Lane. So, we kept the same radius. However, we did shift the road over 10 ft farther to the east to accommodate the existing development that did not do any of the roadway frontage improvements along that

private access road. That's where we came up with the 37 1/2 ft radius. Uh fire department had no issues with it. Okay. So just to confirm during the site the site team review the fire department was there saw this plat and said they said had no issues with it. the during the site team, the plat was not as fully developed as it as these three plan sheets that are presented to you now, but the fire department as one of the local agencies was provided these same documents, I believe, and and the city can probably confirm that and they had no comment, Josh. Along with the city engineer. Okay. Sorry, we're looking into something. Um, what's the question? The question is, um, during the site team review, the proposed plat or at least portions of the proposed plat hopefully with the road were presented and the fire department had issues or no issues with the turning radius on that northwest corner that mirrors the mention there, you know, no mention at all. As as Mr. Dman mentioned he um this their development followed the existing development that's up there an existing easement that exists on the subject property. They're following that they're effectively improving the existing easement that's there following the land. Okay. Got it. Okay. The reason I'm asking these questions in such in in this spec in this specific way is because Yeah. because in order for us as the planning commission to deny something, create a condition, it has to meet the code. Um, we can't just say like we feel like it needs to be this way. Um, so that's why I'm just making sure that your questions

are specifically answered. And if there is an opportunity for us to say, you know what, this needs to be adjusted a little bit, we can do that. But so far, we're striking out. Do you have any other questions? No. Commissioner Portella and Commissioner Pippid. Any questions for the appellent? Okay. Anything to add? I think I said what I have to say. Okay. And we have the documentation for it, which is good. Um, thank you. Yeah. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Um, okay. Next, we are getting to does anyone wish to testify in favor of the appeal? That is those in favor of the appeal who think the subdivision application should be denied. Please state your name and address for the record. Again, um you have three minutes for your for the for your testimony. And sorry to cut it short, but that was what we stated at the beginning and we've had very long um presentations from both the citylicant and appellant. So, we're trying to be concise with our time. When you do come up here, please remember that our I'll say it again. The hearing requires the commission to make its decision based exclusively on the applicable criteria, the evidence in the record, and the specific findings. So, if you're going to come up here and say something like, "I think it should be denied for this." Please reference something specific in the code that says this doesn't meet it, you should deny it. Here's why. of course you could say whatever you like for your three minutes, but th those those are the things that we're that we're looking for. Yeah,

Donna Lawrence. Um, I live on View Court and I just wondered if the planning commission has actually been on site. Yes. All I wanted to know. And um as previously mentioned the the soil that is to come later the the the slope and the soil considerations that comes later in your review somebody's review after engineering is done. Yeah. Someone's review it. It won't come to us but it becomes a a condition of this of any building happening. Yeah. Yeah. And I have a question. So this is real quick. So if another development is put in besides phase one and fi phase two, somebody else comes in and develops the property to the east, that would mean all the traffic's going to come up court for that development also. Correct. probably because because the topography of building a road clear through to the east like down to 19th Street is would be pretty difficult to put in probably. Well, perhaps we can't speak to that now because we don't know. But whenever that goes in, another I imagine traffic impact study will have to be done. So that's we don't know. We can't we can't speak to that. Yeah. Hi, my name is Allison Shock. Um, actually used to be Karp. I actually lived on uh Lewis Street for 20 years and now View Court for 20 years. So, I just want to make a note. I I know this is just I don't have any ordinances or anything, but I've watched uh winter storms occur the bottom of both hills all my life, and I have never seen a

fire truck or an ambulance ever make it up that hill, either of them, in the 20 years I've been on both sides. But I'm just curious, um, if something was to happen, hypothetically, I'm at the bottom of Court, by the way, not the very bottom, but towards the bottom. Um, if a landslide happened, just just bear with me, who's responsible for that, just hypothetically, is that part of the city of the Dallas or is that developer job? If for some darn reason Ted's Velco's house comes sliding down the hill onto me, um, who's responsible for it? I'm just curious. That is an incredible question for an attorney. And I and I will give you the legal answer. It depends. Well, if the house comes down the hill on me, I'm sure somebody's going to be responsible. Hopefully, it won't be me or do I have to get avalanche insurance here. So, and I don't really want to because I Yeah. I mean, it would go to what, you know, was it an act of nature? Was it caused by something? Who is the cause? What was the approximate cause? Blah blah blah. Right. Yeah. Well, I mean, if it's the top of the hill and you guys are excavating it and it for some reason when water hits it and we all think we know because we've seen water hit those hills and all the landslides that have happened just up our hill over the last uh couple of years cuz I've been there. I'm just curious on who's responsible for if the if the foundation gives out because they're excavating for all the homes. So, just curious on that. So, yeah, I think it I think that's that is a very circumstantial answer. Um, it depends when, who owns it at the time, is someone working on it at the time, etc. I was just curious. Thank you. But a good question indeed, Harry Wade. Um, where the orchard is up above on the top at 20

1700 East 21st Street. Um the road that you're t that goes up adjacent to our fence, there's a dirt road there now. It's well it's gravel road, but it erodess every single time. Okay, you may, this may not be a code thing, but every time there's a rain, there's serious erosion on that. it ends up on a couple of those lots or it ends up on the main road which the city is constantly having to clean. Okay. So, that's one. The other one is you're you're saying that the site development at the time would would evaluate the constrictions or whatever other issues they might have with actual construction of the house. But they already built two houses up there that didn't meet any, you know, criteria that the city should have required. Um, they don't have any sidewalks. They don't have setbacks properly and they were allowed to be constructed. How can we rely on that permit process to really evaluate how safe that is or if it's appropriate? Were they within the incorporated city at the time they were built? They were. I I can say that um there were some moments missed in some of the past developments in the city. Um I can tell you from personal experience now that those moments are not very missed. And if director Chandler would care to add to that at all. I mean it's a rigorous process. It's not like these guys are like you're good. You're good. I used to build so I understand that it's not like that anymore. Is not rigorous at all.

Yeah. And they just the city even though we testified and other people did that they needed to improve the roads that they needed to do all the things that they needed to do to build additional sites they weren't done. Okay. Quick question. you are the orchardist for which this easement road is going to benefit, right? Got it. Okay. So, I can speak to the the lack of sidewalks in front of at least two of the lots that now but this subdivision. Um the city of the Dallas, we have, you know, there's minor partition process and a subdivision process. The two are very different when it comes to improvement requirements. the city back in 2015, the city actually tied the hands of ourselves to require improvements with anything associated with a minor partition. So minor partition can come in, you can then build two single family homes there and we will we cannot require sidewalks, curves, anything like that. It is strictly in our code that says we we cannot do that. So even the street, no would not be able to do that. The only reason we're seeing improvements up in this development and this development is now going to be installing improvements for five abuing properties is because that code provision that restricts us from allowing improvements. So single family homes are getting built all the time in the city of the Dallas. And as much as staff would like to see sidewalks go in front of them, we cannot do it. I've cried it erod. I mean it erodess there every time I take my track down there every you know, few months and have to try to smooth it out and the neighbors are always ended up all with gravel in their grains and everything else. It's it's a mess. That's all I'm saying is I don't want to see a situation. I know how erosive this area is, how steep it is. You have you have no curbs or sidewalks planned for that easement road. And you know, it's just going to

end up being a mess. Like to see some curbs on that easement road. Okay. Definitely. Noted. Any anyone else proponents of the appeal? Sure. Marus Rufner, owner of the Cherry Orchard and part of Wayen Rufner. Okay. Will you state your name, address, please? Les Runer 1700 East 21st. Um I was I was there when these two houses were being um approved that Gary just referred to and we asked that part of the requirement be that they pave the rest of the road. You can see on well um it's unpaid from Lively's lot which doesn't it's got the north arrow on it to the little roadway that goes up to Smith and to Ted's place and um we were guaranteed that that would be required go along with the the development of those lots and it has never happened. And so um that doesn't um didn't give me much faith or confidence that city was doing their part of the job and doing what they said they would do. Okay. That was done. Um I you said that you had been out there. Everybody's been out to actually walk this whole property and look at it. I just don't I have I don't

know about anybody else. You have Okay. I think it's imperative that everybody look at this and also drive on 20th which is on the north side of the development and look up that slope which to me looks like I don't know 60° or so. Um it's very high. It's very steep. And then the other the other thing to look at I think is on the south side of East 21st Street. You look at that. Um this uh topographical map does not plan view anyway. Does does not really explain that that when you're on 21st you've got that slope which is extremely steep going up to the top level. which is the south side of East 21st. It's at least 12 feet tall. Okay. And it's it's pretty much vertical. I'm not sure how they plan to deal with that. Now, there's some real challenges and concerns for I think all of us in the the the area and the development and also in particular for the hospital and the houses downhill from the development on the north side houses all the way down to 19. There were there were a landslide and we know how easily that happen. Um, there could be a lot of damage done to properties. Okay. Thank you. Uh, yeah, but like 10 seconds quick, but you got to get in there and state your name and address. Yeah. 1700 East 21st Street. Okay. Um, there supposedly

will be no parking signs along that upper road. M private road. We bring fruit out of there in a semi. Um if people are parking on that road, you know, we won't be able to get our fruit out. So who enforces that if it's a private road? Uh no, it's a public road, right? That's a that's an easement. That would be the easement. That What part are you talking about? That that entire road. 21st. East 21st. talking about the road that goes off. That's the easement. Your road. Got it. There's supposedly no parking on there because if there was, we wouldn't be able to get our fruit out of there. Um I think that would probably fall into some This would be a good question for Chris. Um okay, so this easement road, it's going to have no parking signs on it. Correct. It is an easement to benefit correct neighboring property who enforces no parking. If the city's posting it for no parking, the city's taking on that obligation. Okay. Nobody else has enforcement authority. Nobody else can be out there writing parking tickets, right? Only the city can do that. Sure. Okay. There you go. Parking tickets won't do me a lot of good with a load of fresh fruit. Okay. You That's the first problem is making the law. The second problem is enforcing it. Okay. All right. Chair Cornet, just to just to jump in. Um, my name is Jonathan Cara. I'm the city attorney. In the past few months, actually, city's codes enforcement division and the city attorney's office have worked to revamp the city's parking ordinances that deal with the authority for the the city to tow in situations. Well, in what situations can the city tow vehicles as opposed to just issuing citations? We can very, you know, I'm very happy to say um that we can now

absolutely tow and we do now absolutely tow people that park in violation of lawfully erected no parking signs. So, if that helps anything, it has nothing to do with land use or this subdivision appeal, but did want to address that concern. Okay. And I could say that given how people like to talk to each other, that'll probably only happen once and people quickly learn that they will not be able to park there. Um, anyone else? Um, the access for those lots, too. It's not just an access way to the I'm sorry, Cornet. I can't hear anybody. You need to get it. Yeah, come on up. That's fine. Danzer 100 lane. Um, that access is to the lots. that is that those lots that frontage on 21st have rear access because they cannot access from 21st due to the steep slopes of the site. So not only is that an access to property to the south which is the orchards, it is access to those lots, right? He he's just talking about his easement road. That is the easement road that creates the access to those lots. Okay. They're all rear lots, rear access lots. Okay. So, no parking signs, right? But it's not just the orchardist that's going to be using that road. It's all the people that live on those lots. Got it. Okay. Any other proponents of the appeal? from 2000 view court. So yes, I'm Pam

Pamela Le from 2000 View Court. So one of the concerns that we are or I'm most uh concerned about is the soil testing and the soil composition that is present where they are discussing building and what how they're going to ensure that that soil composition is proper for the building or what types of soils they'll bring in. what type of retaining walls structures will be implemented to prevent some of the natural disaster concerns that many of the neighbors have. So, one of the things that I was going to request is that um under Oregon residential specialty code R41.4 and R401.41 for one to have the soil test and geotechnical evaluation be performed to ensure this for our residents and help us have this more of a confidence in what is occurring in this location. Okay. Um, I think just to answer your question about that and and I I think I'm going to allow a bit of an adjustment in how this is going. Darren, do you does AKS do geoengineering, soil sampling, anything like that? Uh, Chair Cornet, we used to within the city of the Dallas and then with the 2010 Marker report, it required the services of a licensed geotechnical engineer or uh, registered geologist to do any uh, geotechnical design or geologic evaluations within the city. We

still continue to do them within Wasco County, but just not in the city. Correct. Got it. Okay. Um, so whoever the the developer or the in like let's say development's done, everything's in a a a person comes and says I just want to build on this. Um, they have to hire a licensed bonded insured engineer, geotech engineer to do all this stuff. Um, if there is going to be site prep prior to the the the sale of these lots or any building, that has to be done by the same kind of contractor. Yeah. Um, but again, we don't we as the planning commission don't have an opportunity to say this has to happen before final plat approval, but it's not just done by somebody. Yeah. Can I can I ask a question? Um, what what would you want to test it for? What do you think is in the soil? I'm just asking. Yeah. So, for example, there's different types of soils. Some soils are more likely to slip or they're not as sturdy. So, like as Ted wanted to bring in a soil sample, I'm sure he would show you some soil tests which are be neat where you can actually see how sturdy a soil is if you get it wet. And so some one of the concerns that a lot of the people have is just that the soil composition isn't suitable for the type of development that they're going to do. So it just be more reassuring to us to know that if the soil isn't suitable if they're going to bring be bringing in engineered soils or whatever type of infrastructure they're going to be putting along the landslide area or risk that might be happening. just giving that reassurance to not only the new owners, right? And be like a due diligence type thing and then also just reassuring to the people who are

lower the hospital and things like that and just hoping that that doesn't cause some sort of natural disaster issue. Very sad and tragic. Yeah. Well, thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Any other proponents of the appeal? Okay. Does anyone wish to testify in opposition to the appeal that is against the appeal who think the subdivision application should be approved as is? Chair Cornet. Yes. I assume that being the applicant, we don't need to readress this. Do we get a chance to rebut some of the appellants concerns at a later date? Uh, yes, that does. Well, that happens next. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. Thank you. Yes. Uh, Attorney Car, do you have No, I just wanted to address uh Mr. Eman's question. um after the proponent or the opponents of the appeal testify, there is always going to be a final chance of rebuttal um for the applicant. Thanks. Yes, which is where we are now. So, does the applicant wish to present any rebuttal? Okay. Uh yeah, Mr. Aman, if you would like to speak for the applicant. I certainly would. Thank you so much. Um there's a lot of concern uh from the neighbors about the soils and and I would say that maybe unwarranted. Uh some of Mr. Miss Danzer's um uh comments in her in her appeal had to

do with land use capability and land use class. When you actually look at land use capability and land use class, it was those were groups of soils or or they were soils that were put into groups to categorize how they would uh act as crop lands, not anything to do with development or soil stability. regarding the soil stability. Um, this area, none of the development area is located within the geologic hazard zone mapped on the Wasco County base map. So, even if we were to disregard the city limits and the city utilizing a specific geotechnical investigation that was done by Mr. Jinger as your reference. If you were to look at the Wasco County base map, none of these none of the the applicant's property actually lies within a geologic a map geologic hazard zone within the Wasco County base map. As a testament to how stable these soils are, I think the residents up there can look at the steep slopes. Uh, Miss Rufus R Marlus, I I'm sorry, I I missed the last name. Uh, the orchard is to the south, was talking about how steep the slopes are off of on the south side of East 21st Street. Those slopes have been there for decades at this point. The same thing with the steep slopes on the south side of the private drive that serves Mr. Balov's property. uh those far exceed the 2:1 slopes that we would intend to construct new new earthwork at. Um do not when we put a

note on the grading plan to the fact that excess material may be placed as structural fill recognize that there would be considerable engineering oversight given to the design of that structural fill. First of all, the underlying subgrade has to be properly prepped. In this case, there would be level benches cut in beginning at the bottom of where the fill is going to begin, not starting at the top and pushing down as Mr. Valov alluded to with a dozer. Then the material would be brought in in lifts of 8 in to a foot thick depending upon the type of material, properly moisture conditioned, and coma and compacted. And upon completion of that fill, as it's brought up in stages, the outside finished embankment would then be struck off at the design slope. Um, that's an engineered fill. That's not just pushed material. Um, there was a comment uh about the drainage nuances and such. And right now, the existing private road that slopes down into That's right. And I unfortunately don't have the addresses, but but on the west side of that private drive um that Mr. Valkov lives on, there actually will be curb and gutter on that roadway that will help capture the storm water and direct it to catch basins. Catch basins. Oh, sorry. Say that one more time. The the ride ofway. The furthest south rightway. that the orchardist is going to use will have sidewalks or excuse me will have gut gutters um and curbs. No, no, I'm sorry. That's a different access road and we we can talk about that. I'm

referring to the access road that turns north off of 21st Street and serves those uh four lots basically. Uh Laurel, um Alfred's, Mr. Valovs at the corner and then the other two going south. Got it. Sorry. No, no, no. That's fine. That will be developed to public road standards with curb and gutter sidewalk and drainage structures. Those little squares. Uh if I don't know if uh director Chandler can go to the grading plan um but we have tried to identify where catch basins there we go thank you sir um if you zoom in at the intersection of west intersection of Smith Ridge and 21st Street you'll see that there actually is a total of four catch basins there. Two on 21st Street and on to the east of the intersection, two on Smith Ridge Loop to the north of the intersection, trying to capture the water before it leaves the site. the two or the one on the south side of 21st Street also was intended to capture any storm water that came off of the private access road um that would be going up that could allow rear access to those lots south of 21st and definitely would allow access to the orchard to the south if drainage is a concern u on this we so there's a couple things. Uh Mr. Wade discussed how it's constantly eroding. The gravel's eroding and he's having to regrade it. Recognize that it will be paved and so the erosion issue

and raveling gravel now has gone away. The the second thing is huh, you know, I guess we could look at putting a few drainage structures in that road rather than putting curb on the side of that private access road. Uh, I would instead probably look at doing an inverted uh, center line where the the low spot in the road's not at the two outside edges, but rather at the center where the water can be collected with one catch basin rather than two. And it also allows for easier access onto the lots from that road rather than having to go up and over a curb. Okay. Um the the Miss Danzer mentioned the fire department access up there at the north end and how that is going up into a 2:1 slope. Um and I would agree with her. It is going up actually the slope is steeper. I don't know Mr. Chandler if you could zoom in there. Yes sir, please. um that the south leg of that goes into a a very steep slope. If you start looking at all those little dashed lines, uh you know, there's more than 10 ft of there's close to 12 feet of of climb on the south leg. The north leg actually probably doesn't meet fire code because it's squared off and there's no radius going into it. But I would really like to point out that's the existing fire department turnaround that was done when Mr. Valkov's property and the other two properties were developed. That is not what we're proposing. We're actually stating that that will be

eliminated with depending upon the the construction schedule. We will either provide uh properly designed hammerheads at the phase line of Smith Ridge Road where it ends and East 21st Street where it ends or we will provide a graveled or all- weather access road that connects those two deadend terminations uh that will carry the 85,000 lb fire apparatus vehicle. Logically, what we would intend to do rather than building two hammerheads that will eventually become obsolete and be torn out, we would actually uh recommend to our client that the remainder of Smith Ridge Loop and East 21st be graded out and then uh uh covering of gravel installed to allow for the all weather access. basically create the loop but not put in the utilities nor the final uh finished surfaces until phase two is developed. Let's see. That's really about all I have. I appreciate everybody's time and and um please recognize that I I still understand the the appellants concerns. Uh we have tried to develop this property as thoughtfully as possible uh within engineering guidelines. Thank you. Thank you. Uh Mr. Alfred, anything to add? I don't think so. I think she Okay. Any specific comm uh questions from the commissioners for anybody? No. At all? I do have one um I don't know if

it's a question, comment or a request. Um I understand what you just said um about bringing in um different kind of I don't know dirt, whatever you call it. Would it be possible though to [Music] um ease people's minds to order what I don't remember your name um to do a test of the dirt ground whatever you call it. Um, I mean I'm just putting my position myself and their position and I know I saw a baby so I don't know if it's if we can we request that. Um, I think that I think that falls under our our Well, let's just ask. Is that something that is possible to request prior to in this session? Is that is that something we can we can legally make a condition prior to final approval? What's the what's the condition one more time? Cher Cornet um one of the um witness or one of the testify about um maybe having the I don't know if it's dirt what do you call it? So the soil taste tested right? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. To do basically a make sure that it's you know it's I don't know. I I don't know. I just feel like Yeah. Yeah. This is You would like to see a preliminary soil soil test, soil stability test. Yeah, I can I can just weigh in, but I I'd love to hear from um our special land use council as well, but I'll just tell you that in the context at least for uh conditional use permits, which I imagine is similar here. It's just talking about the conditions of approval in title

10.3. 050. 060. The commission may approve um conditional use permits subject to any and all conditions the commission deems necessary to satisfy the review criteria and mitigate identified impacts provided such conditions are related to the proposed development or to the operational characteristics of the proposed use. And so if you know using this um using this part of our code that applies to conditional use permits um I'm not so sure if it applies to to subdivision appeals. I'd love to hear Chris's thoughts on that. But the standard for the commission's conditions in that context are if the commission thinks that something is necessary to satisfy the review criteria and mitigate identified impacts, those conditions are allowed so long as they relate to the proposed development or to the operational characteristics of the proposed use. I would say I'd want to hear from Chris first. Thank you, Mr. Cara. Ultimately, you're exactly right. You, as the chair pointed out at the beginning, we're limited to the criteria that are in the code. That's what we have to apply. And if it's not clear that one or more of the criteria met, we impose conditions to make sure that it's met. So, we can only impose a condition if we can identify a criterion that's not met without it. and I not aware of one that we have identified thus far that would not be met without some kind of soils testing. So I'm uh hesitant to impose that condition without an obvious hook in the code. But I would point out that um we do require them to get the special uh uh the well the the PC the constraints per

physical constraints permit which we'll get into the engineering of each lot. Um the we require them to get a 1200 C permit from uh DSL, right? DEEQ to determine Yeah. Um that will get into the site stability. And also as one of the witnesses pointed out, by the way, props to that person because anybody who's brave enough to open the Oregon Residential Specialy Code has my respect. I mean, I've been doing this for 30 years and I try to avoid that thing. So, props. Um, but as she pointed out, that's covered by the Oregon Residential Specialty Code. So, anytime the de the the builders come in to get a building permit, they're going to have to demonstrate how they are complying with those code provisions that she read into the record. So, there are checks at various places throughout the process um that I think will address a lot of that soil stability uh issue and the slope concerns. Um I I don't know at the end of the day that everybody's going to be satisfied, but it will I think it will be addressed. I just am not convinced that we have um an adequate hook in this context to require that condition. Okay. And and to to continue on that um conditions of approval section 1E after preliminary approval of the subdivision, the applicant shall submit a physical strengths application for all site work associated with development of the subdivision. I an environmental assessment shall be conducted for all lands to be dedicated to the public and the city ensuring a thorough evaluation of potential liabilities and hazards. That is a broad enough statement to cover almost everything. Uh section two, a physical strength permit shall be required with all cuts and fills exceeding 50 cubic yards. Engineered cut and fill plans will be required prior to any cut or fills over 250 cubic yards. 50 cubic yards is nothing. That's it's less than

a dump truck. Um, this shall require the approval of the city engineer. Disturbance of more than an acre will require a 1200 CP a 1,200 C permit to be obtained from the DEQ which was just discussed. Physical constraints permit submitted for this development will be consistent with the thous municipal code. And then five ongoing conditions. A physical constraints permit will be required for all development with all cuts and/orfills exceeding 50 cubic yards, which again is not a lot. Engineer plans will be required for all development and slashore cuts and slashorfills with exceeded 250 cubic yards. So there is pretty much before anyone moves any dirt they're they have to do all this stuff like they have they have to get the geoengineering they have to get the soil samples they have to know what they're dealing with. Um this is conditions of approval and ongoing conditions of approval for the final plat. So, it's it runs with the runs with the whole show. It is confusing because there's nothing in there that says soil sample like but it is it's it's it's all captured within it. It makes you feel better. Okay. Okay. Yeah. And I think um the last question then I think we can get in deliberations. Um, what is the public process in making sure the developer is being held accountable, making sure these these steps are being followed? When can any person check in on that and just be like, "Hey, you know, they're moving dirt up there. What's going on? What's that look like?" Yeah, I mean at any time during construction, you know, they can always reach out to, you know, the director of the community development department or um reach out to our public works department. We do have a development inspector on staff that will be out

there when these sites are getting built out. They they go out for routine inspections throughout the process. Okay. And then Yeah. And of course, let's just say dirt's being moved. Yeah. Um that 1200 C permit, physical constraints per application permit, all these things would be on would be on file. Yeah. And when you know when we'll be real with everybody and how we go through these conditions of approval before we sign off on a plat or we sign off on a building permit, we go through step by step and check to see that every single condition is met. Some of these are a little more of those ongoing. So they're not immediate things that you see, but you know, with the ongoing ones, we don't necessarily check them off, but we go through and if this dimension needs to be changed here, we make sure that it's changed. I mean, and that's before that that's what that's our process. So we have this we use the conditions of approval as a checklist at the end of these developments. They need to build out the site and then those plans have well the plans have to be approved. Then they build out the site. They do all of that before the plat is even approved before we sign off on that plat. And Carrie had a question. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Pibonich question. No, I I think you you guys addressed it. I you know, I was thinking about the the conversation about the soil testing and what was involved in those permits that are required before they move any dirt. And so I think I think it got addressed in the conversation. Thank you. Mr. Chair, mayor, before you move into deliberations because I think it might be useful in the future, there's one other um issue I wanted to identify and I have to thank Miss Danzer for bringing my attention to this. I usually focus on the law and the procedures and all that and don't dive too deeply into the code itself. But in this case, um, the discussion about the radi, the 37 feet

versus what the code standard is, I'm like, what? Anyway, we during some of the testimony, we jumped into that, jumped into that. And in the development code, section 10.10.060 sets out street requirements and it's a fairly long section. And the radi provision is in subsection J and J3 specifically says, "Yeah, centerline radi curves shall not be less than 80 ft on local streets." Well, that's a pretty glaring discrepancy. And the that the one right above that says grades shall not exceed 6% on arterials, 10% on collectors, and 12% on local streets. If you adhere to these standards, Vista Court would not exist. Right? Most of those streets up there, there wouldn't be houses up there if you adhere to these standards. And that's because the opening se paragraph of this section says where topographical conditions present special circumstances exceptions to these standards may be granted by the city engineer based on safety capacity and so on. So I talked to the city engineer and he has a review he he was part of the in-house team that reviewed these plans, looked at the plans and signed off on them because of the topography frankly up there. You all know far better than I do the topography is challenging in the Dells in many cases and if you had to stick to the strictly to these standards there's a lot of things out there that could not be built. Um so the your code specifically relies on the discretion of the city engineer to determine when those provision when those numeric standards can be uh exceeded and that's what that's what happened in this case and it's likely to come up again. Right. Sure. Yeah, the topography is not going to flatten out here anytime soon. So, it will come up again. Thank you for that. Any other questions? Are you ready for

deliberations? Commissioner Portell and Commissioner Pipnich. Okay. Okay. In that case, uh we are closing the public testimony portion of the hearing and we are deliberating. Um Commissioner Portell, our our zooming or zooming commissioners, if you want to unmute yourself just to make it easy, unless there's a bunch of noise in the background. Um do you have any thoughts, adjustments, anything like that? No, I don't. It seems like the staff report is very thorough. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Patella agrees. Um, my only thought is I think I would and I don't know if this should be a condition. Um, and I'll defer to city attorney or staff about this. I think that there should be an inverted center line on that street um on the southernmost street just to help with that runoff. Is that a condition that we should put in? Should we explicitly state that? Cody, Cody, can you tell me what's an inverted center line? An inverted center line uh makes the road look like a V instead of a mountain and it helps the W it it is it is a less expensive solution to diverting and moving water down a street as opposed to curbs. It do we get that molecular in the proposed subdivision in in the proposed plat? Do we do we talk about sort of

like I guess the the horizontal curvature of the street? I can't hear if anybody's talking. Well, I there there's concern about the amount of water that's going to be coming down this southernmost street and there it needs it seems that it's just going to be a flat piece of pavement which would create a significant amount of runoff and not all of it going into the storm sewer system. Um, and I think that there needs to be a little remedy for that. Uh, yeah. Yeah. I mean, um, before I even look at like the legality of that, which I think is a great question, frankly, I'd love to hear from an engineer to see if this is something that's sustainably like, you know, feasible. Right. Yeah. I that was a suggestion made by Mr. Ecman. So, I'm looking at the subdivision plan and grading plan, and we're talking about the easement on the southern edge of the property where it um is adjacent to the orchard. And so, it would collect the water in the V and convey it where to um to the newly improved street. East 21st. Yeah. Is that the slope or does it does it slope that direction? It Yeah, it Okay. Is it pumping up? No, it's running downhill. Or do I have this backwards? We have We have some Darren's hand. Darren, please please elaborate on this. Sorry. Thank you, Chair Cornet. I don't know if uh the director uh Chandler can pull the the drawing back up, but no, Mr. Cornet, you're exactly right. An inverted uh center line looks like a V, a flat V, where the center of the road, the center of the 26 feet of pavement actually is lower than the two outside edges. That road basically except for the very east. Well, actually, you can

look at the grades there. And except for the very termination which is at 677.5, there's one high spot at 678 and then it begins to slope downward to the west at approximately a 9 12% slope. As it makes the corner, it then continues downward to the northwest at a 7.7% slope. I would advocate creating a V or a valley. Maybe a valley is a better better term instead of inverted, but creating a valley at the center of that pavement and probably installing a catch basin somewhere around that radius before it has to make the corner and go up to 21st Street at at the 7 12% or 7.7% slope. The catch basin would be your typical city type catch basin. It would be at the center of the road and it would then be piped the the storm water that it collects would be piped directly into the city storm water system. Uh that remaining portion, you know, the 100 ft from that radius up to 21st Street would be in a valley and then it would basically spill out onto 21st Street. However, 21st Street looks like a mountain or crown. uh the center of the roads high. So any water that came off of that small section of pavement would then turn west and go to the catch basin that's by the corner on 21st Street just uh just east of of Summit Ridge Loop. Yeah. And I can you can speaking for the applicant. I I would feel comfortable saying that yes, we would be willing to to create that

valley and install the catch basin and piping to address the drainage. Chair Cornet making me feel like I'm holding the map upside down or something. Yes. Yeah. just wanted to mention, you know, it's, you know, with the applicants, uh, the applicant seems okay with it and, you know, if that, if that's what the commission wants, and so be it. Um I would just highly advise any condition on this issue that involves you know such something so technical um be conditioned on approval by the city engineer and allowing the city engineer to review any such modifications before you know basically saying you know if the city engineer approves whatever it is that you're about to recommend then so be it. But if the city engineer has some public safety concerns um associated with this that aren't obvious for the last 3 minutes that we've been talking about it um I'd like them to have the opportunity and in fact require the city engineer to review that before it actually is a condition. So it's basically a conditional condition if that makes sense. Okay. Um I have a question too that there's already in the conditions that the design and installation of public utilities have to conform to city standards. Does this qualify as a public utility? Because that already requires review by the city engineer. Yeah. I mean I would say that a drainage is not a public utility but the drainage system which leads into this the storm sewer. we're talking about the if we're talking about the easement with the road on it essentially. Yeah, I think arguably it could be considered part of the city um storm sewer system. But I would say if you want to just cover the cover everybody's bases, you could just make it a standalone condition. But again, I would I would only recommend that in the context that it's

conditioned on the city engineer saying that's okay. If the city engineer says, you know, it sounded good at the meeting, but hey, we looked at this, you know, for more than 3 minutes, and it turns out it's going to cause some issues over here, then I would love this city to reserve the opportunity to not require this. Oh, Chair Cornett, um the the storm the storm water collection and piping, the the manhole and the piping connects to the city system. So, that would be considered public part of a public utility. Um, and we can make the condition subject to approval consent of the city engineer. Okay, I think that's good. How do you think we should May I have your recommendation on how that should be worded? I'm I'm going to defer to Chris. Yeah. Applicant will be required to design and install a public storm utility system in the southern easement and must be reviewed and approved by the city engineer. Something along those lines subject to review and approval by city. I wouldn't actually say it like that. Just just want to jump in. um everything that before that subject part is fine but it's not subject to the engineers review and approval right I mean it's like what if it can't be done we're effectively denying the application because of you know engineering impossibility and so um I wouldn't make it condition on the engineer's approval I would just say you know if the city engineer approves it the applicant can build it but if the city engineer doesn't improve it then it's not a condition that make sense there's a bit of a difference there yeah it should be if the city engineer approves the solution presented by Mr. Ecman then the

applicant has to do it. If the engine if the city engineer does not approve it then the applicant has to put in curbs. Whatever what is the requirement now? So there currently there's nothing on the plan for storm storm retention there. What about for curbs? Are there curbs there? There there's not. So it could be something along the lines of the city engineer or you know the design of a storm water catchment system on this southern easement must be reviewed and approved by the city engineer that leaves it open and in the event that the drain doesn't work maybe then curbs are installed. Yeah. Yeah. Any Okay. So if you if you phrase it like that like any such system not not requiring a system but if there was a system would need to be approved. Is that what you're suggesting? Effectively keeping it open enough to allow it to be designed, you know, in partnership with the city engineer. But we do have Darren from AKS with a question on maybe how to word it. I it maybe instead of tying it to the roadway, state that uh storm drainage must be designed and approved by the must be designed and and approved by adequate storm drainage must be designed and approved by the city engineer for the private roadway. I mean that that's fine on on the legal end. Um I I'd be surprised to hear we we didn't already require that elsewhere sort of as Commissioner Pippenage mentioned but yeah that's fine. You could do it. But we're comfortable that it falls within the storm water management criteria in your code just like you require storm drainage fac uh management on other roads because this is impervious surface. Uh it's appropriate to include storm water management

provisions for that as well. Yeah. So you're saying we don't need to make a specific condition. Oh no, you do. But what I'm saying is that it's consistent. We can easily hook it towards one of the approval standards. Right. Right. That's right. So you can do it and if you want to do it. Yeah. Okay. Darren, could you please say what you said again and maybe a little bit slower so I can write it down? Um adequate storm drainage facilities shall be designed and approved by the city engine adequate storm drainage facilities for the private access road shall be designed and approved by the city engineer. I I I would just caution. Is the city engineer responsible for designing this private access roads drainage? No sir, he's not. I designed by the developer and approved by city engineer. Perfect. Designed by the developer, approved by city engineer. All right. No one else is going to be able to read that, so I think I'm going to have to say it. We have we have the recording. Just just so you know. I was going to say you can record it. Okay. That's a good point. Okay. Um, yeah, I think that's important to be there. Any other any other thoughts? Uh, commissioners, anything like that? Okay. Um, if if if we're done deliberating, then may we please have a motion with a second? And the motion language um is on page 33 of the packet. And of course the motion language would would be moving to a moving to something. Um if we are moving to adopt it would have to be with the verbiage stated by

um Mr. Ecman regarding the adequate storm drainage facilities. I don't have my What do I think? Uh, well, it's it's that um it's this is the number two. Oh, sorry. Number two, if that's what you're doing. Have to say the whole thing. Uh, yeah, just number two if that's what you're saying. If the planning commission decides to affirm the director's decision based upon additional finding and conclusions or with different conditions of approval, move to adopt resolution number PC6278-25, a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the director's approval of submission number 884-24 based upon the findings of facts and conclusions. ions of a law set forth an agenda staff report as modified by commissions with all conditions approval outlining below. Right. Is that a I'll second that. Okay. A motion has been made to Oh, sorry. Can I have that back? It disappeared on me. A motion has been made to affirm the director's decision based upon the additional findings and conclusions um and move to adopt resolution number PC678-25, a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the director's

approval of the subdivision number 86-24. All in favor of adopting resolution number PC627A-25 and denying the appeal and affirming the director's approval of subdivision number 86-24. Raise your right hand say I. I. I. I. All those not in favor say nay. And and anyone abstaining? No one abstaining. Okay. So unanim unanimous eyes on denial of approval and approving the application with the stated condition. And then as a technicality, do I need to I got papers. I got papers everywhere. Um do we need to adopt another resolution? I think that does it. That does it. Okay. Uh, Attorney Car, do we need to adopt? No, we don't. We did our resolution, so we're good. The the Yeah, the motion adopting the resolution with subject to that condition of approval. That is the close of the hearing. That is the final decision of the planning commission, I believe. Okay. Thank you. Um, just for a a final statement, if I may to the group, um, thank you all for coming. We've made it three and a half hours. That's pretty good. Sorry, two and a half hours. Um anyway, please be the diligent community members that you are and stay on top of this project. Um I think that would be just good for you and good for the developer and that type of transparency. Transparency is important. At the same time, uh developer, you've heard a lot about the community concerns and stuff. This isn't finalized yet. It can be altered. Take these things in consideration as as you may. Yeah. All right. Thank Thank you everyone so much. I think you need to close close the hearing out. Sorry. And the hearing is

closed. We need to couple other things on the agenda there. There's a couple other things on the agenda. Yeah. Oh god, I'm hungry. Okay. Um Okay. Discussion item. Oh, okay. Staff comments, project updates. Yeah, it's been long enough. I just I was hoping everybody would stay. I just wanted to give a shout out to Commissioner Popoff. this is his last meeting and he served he served the city for many years in his seat here at planning commissioner and as a planning commissioner we can't thank you enough for all your hard work and and dedication to the city and um we we wish you the best. Yeah. How many years was that Mark? I guess around 25 I think. Oh, for the love of God. Really? Thanks buddy. 25. It was 25. I think it was a 2000 I started. Jesus. I think nice work, man. A lot of work. Okay. Um, commissioner comments, questions. I'm all good. Thank you all so much. Meeting is adjourned. All right. Thank you. Yeah. Green.