Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

On? Oh, it's green. Oh,

there we go.

Okay. It's about to say

it wasn't green. Okay. So welcome to the planning commission meeting for 10/15/2025. Will you call roll, please, Lindsay?

Yes. Vice chair Thompson? Here. Commissioner Paraccini?

Here.

Commissioner Lindley?

Here.

Commissioner Ledek?

Here.

Thank you. Okay. So I guess we're gonna go straight into announcements. First, does anybody have any announcements besides voting for the vice chair and chair planning commission? Anything? Okay. So I don't remember exactly how we hold the elections. Do we just does someone have to be Okay.

Yeah. But let's see. Probably start with chair and then do vice chair.

So Okay. K. Any nominations for chair? K. I knew Randy would go.

You, Chanel.

Yeah. I know they're all ready for that. Okay. I and they'd already convinced me to do it. So yeah. So then we have to vote for that. Right? So correct? Yes. So any of those in favor of me being chair or placing Bill?

You wanna just do Should

we do

Just raise

Yeah. Just raise your hands.

K. I guess. Okay. Records show it's unanimous.

Okay. And then vice chair.

Hey, Randy. I nominate Zach.

Yeah. That's great. That's who we were thinking was Zach.

Okay.

I'll second Zach, I guess. And then even though he's not here, can we do that without him here? Should be fine. Right?

It should be fine. He can't

look Jack.

Yeah. That's true. He just shows up.

He's real quiet.

Yeah. He's not online. Correct? No. Okay. Alright. So those in favor of Zach being vice chair, raise your hand.

Right. Hey. And that's who knows? Alright. At least of the people who are here. Great. Thank you. Nice. Thank you.

Okay. So, we don't have anybody here in the room, but is there anybody online that'd like to share some communication from the public that's not currently on the agenda? Not having to with agenda items. And use your raise your hand if you have something. Okay. I assume everybody's here for the agenda items. So we're gonna go ahead and go to action item number one, which is, the presentation to introduce a project to update the development code, TDC, to comply with organ revised statute or statutes ORS one nine seven a point four zero zero. Requirements related to clearing objective standards for housing. It's Madeline. Great.

Yep. Yes.

I'll get the staff presentation. Just give us a second to get it pulled up. I think that's Erin's presentation. Is it under the more at the bottom? You might have to advance the slides for me then.

Okay. Okay. Awesome. Great. Well, good evening. My name is Madeline Nelson. I'm a planner here with the city of Tualatin, and tonight, I wanna introduce you to a new project that we will be doing to update the Tualatin development code with clear and objective language related to residential housing. Next slide, please. So as a quick overview of tonight's agenda, we'll first start with an overview of the project, which will include the timeline. We'll go ahead and discuss the next steps of the project, and then I'll conclude with any questions you may have for staff members.

So as previously mentioned, this project is to update the twelfth and development code to clear an objective language and standards. The purpose of the project is to audit and update the TTC to create an adoptable code that meets Oregon revised statutes January a 400 or senate bill fifteen sixty four, which we'll discuss further in the coming slides. For this project, we have been partnered with consultant group MIG to assist with the audit and draft code development. We've worked previously with MIG on several past code update projects like the CFEC project that Erin will be discussing later this evening, and this project was funded by a grant through DLCD. So Oregon revised statutes one ninety seven a 400 mandates that local governments regulate housing development using clear and objective standards, conditions, and procedures.

This statute is intended to reduce discretionary barriers, uncertainty, delay, and costs that could potentially discourage housing development. Clear and objective standards, again, are intended to reduce barriers, support housing needs, and improve accessibility and equity in development. So for some additional context, here's an example of discretionary language that a jurisdiction might find in its code versus an example of clear and objective language. So a discretionary standard may say new buildings must be compatible with the character of surrounding development. So in this example, compatible and character are subjective terms and could be open to interpretation based on whoever is reviewing the project.

The ORS requires clear and objective language like this example on the right, which states building facades must include at least 30% windows or doors on street facing elevations. So in this example, this language is specific, measurable, and enforceable regardless of the reviewer. So in this project, we're going to be auditing the twelfth and development code and identifying sections that are discretionary language like that example we were just viewing on the left. So our audit will be looking for language similar to what is shown on the left and identifying those so that we can revise them to be clear and objective language in supportive of the ORS. We can move to the next slide.

So currently, our project consultant, MIG, is conducting an audit of the TDC to identify sections that don't conform to clear and objective standards related to housing, and that final audit should be complete in January. So at that time, we will return to planning commission to seek your feedback on the code audit and receive any recommendations on more code concepts that are policy driven. A draft of the potential code update will be prepared in June 2026, and we'll come back again for your feedback and recommendations on that draft code. And then in August 2026, we will ideally have our final code updates, and that will bring us into adoption in 2026 with our public hearing and formal adoption process. So as previously mentioned, we're going to return in January with our code audit memorandum.

At that time, we're going to seek policy direction from the commission based on the findings of the audit. And that wraps up the very brief introduction into our new CLEAR and objective code update project. If there's any questions for staff at this time, we can answer.

So I guess one of the the things that will be a little bit hard is you're making decisions on those sort of vague things. You're making decisions on what those how Tollatin's gonna interpret anything that had been vague. Correct? So that's kind of where we're gonna be making the decisions. Correct? Is what I see it as in there. Okay. Yes. K.

Yeah. So, with the help of the consultant, we'll present some, like, suggest suggestions, some suggested language, and that's where you can review and give some feedback. And what whatever the feedback is, we have to turn it into something that's clear and objective, which basically means it's it's measurable. It's not the only way to have clear and objective, but it like, that's kind of the the easy way to think about it. Like K. It's a number.

Like, some way some way you could physically check it sort of a thing. Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. Or there's just no interpretation. Right? Like

Right.

You can have a building that's 25 feet tall. It's not, well, what's the surroundings look like?

It fits in with the trees or something random. Yeah.

Yeah. And Erin and I were actually kinda discussing this earlier this afternoon. We have three planners on our planning staff. So, ideally, if you've given a project to all three of us with clear and objective standards, you would get the same result regardless of who's reviewing the application.

Right. Good point.

Andy. So two things, Madeline. When when you start developing the clear and objective standards, and I appreciate the merit in doing that, should simplify for a developer understanding what the requirements are, comes in, checks the box, and gets gets the okay. But in developing 30% glazing or whatever those criteria are, I'm wondering, will you be working at all with developers with, oh, sorry about that.

I just didn't wanna interrupt.

With with homebuilders to get their reaction to 30% glazing versus 20% glazing or whatever specific criteria you might be developing to get some feedback before it's it goes too far down the line?

I know in this project, at this point, we haven't identified any stakeholder groups to elicit feedback. We will mainly be using the planning commission and our city council as kind of a sounding board on these different policy decisions.

But we could potentially, at that first review, like, say, like, maybe we want some sort of stakeholder feedback if we find something that we have to make clear and objective is we feel like a significant. Is that possible on something like that? I guess, just in thinking Well,

my concern is if you wait until the hearing and you get a bunch of developers coming in and say, boy, this is this is really going too far. We're not gonna be able to build anything. It's nice. It's clear and objective, but it's way overboard, then you have to back up. Whereas if you take the time ahead of time and do some brainstorming with them and, you know, try to ferret that out, it would make the end result easier to deal with, I think.

Yeah. I don't disagree with that, and I I'm not I don't remember where we're at with the public engagement piece of this. It's not something that we can have a like, a lot of engagement with, but I think a a couple of things just from off the top of my head is that the, consultant who's working on this has done it with other cities, and we can link to what other cities have already implemented. And it's probably not that, challenging for us to ask a couple of developers to give us some feedback on proposed.

Yeah. I see there were focus groups with Aaron's topic with the architects and TSP folks, and I I thought that was a great idea to do.

Yeah.

I would encourage some thought being given to that. And then my other question on this is if a builder doesn't want to follow doesn't want to abide by the requirements, what's the alternative then? How what do there's a how do they seek to do anything different? If they don't want 30 glazing, how what's the alternative for them to try to adjust that?

So, typically, with clear and objective and the way that, ORS is structured, we have to we can have another path. So there's the easy path.

Yeah. I'll

call it easy. Yep. May not be easy. Follow these directions.

Yep. Clear and objective.

If that doesn't work for you, here's the discretionary path.

Will you have that?

Yes. That's a good question. I don't know what that's gonna look like, but that that would probably not go way necessarily. Because we have don't we have we have that now with our architectural, single family review? Like, you either give us these five elements or I don't know if it turns into a type two. It does. Okay.

Yeah.

It's gonna type two. And that, I think, based off of our conversations with our consultants so far, is a policy initiative that we might be bringing to the commission to ask for direction on is if we wanna maintain that two track system or if we would prefer to consolidate it. We also have variances within our code. Last December, you reviewed that signed variance application for Cabela's, so that's an example of going outside of what standards are allowed and seeking exceptions.

Yeah. I I've just been through this process before, and I would really encourage you. I'm I'm all for the clear and objective. But for those that wanna do something different, give us a give them an opportunity to to go through some process that gives them some latitude, whatever that might be.

Yeah. But, and that probably would end up looking like some type of type two review.

Whatever it would be. Full idea. I don't know. Just some alternative that gives them that that discretionary latitude.

And, just to also be super clear, it's only for this is only for residential.

Right. So

nonresidential would still, have some discretionary. Yeah. But K.

Any other questions? Anybody? K.

Thank you, Madeline. Thank you.

K. I guess we'll move on to our item two. The twelfth and planning commission is being asked to provide a recommendation to the city council on a city initiated code amendment to comply with state mandated rulemaking known as climate friendly and equitable communities, CFEC, walkable design standards under PTA twenty five zero zero zero two.

So I believe this is the wrong presentation. We're looking for that October 15.

Here we go. And there's somewhere. Click on the click on the Chrome. Oh, you found it. Yeah.

Thanks, Lindsay. Yeah. And good evening, commissioners. I'm Erin Engman, Tualatin's senior planner, and I'm joined by Aquila Herdrawage, Tualatin's community development director. As you mentioned tonight, I'll be presenting a city initiated project to implement the state mandated climate friendly and equitable communities, also known as CFEC, rulemaking for walkable communities under PTA 25 dash zero zero zero two.

While you're pausing, I just noticed that our planning commissioner, Weimer, joined online. Oh. So Okay. Try to remember. I think she may need to do it. Okay.

Can we congratulate him?

What's that?

Can we congratulate him and extend her condolences?

If we pause and let's see. Can you bring up the pictures?

Hello. Sincere apologies. I was held up late at work.

Oh, there is. Hey, Zach. Would you chair Thompson, would you like to

Oh, yes, Zach. We're we're congratulating you on being vice chair.

Thank you very much. I I appreciate it. I'm so sorry for my absence. As I said, there was a there's an irregularity with the work with the with the council at work, so I wasn't able to join on time. Apologies.

That's okay. We assumed you were okay with it.

Yes. Thank you very much.

Okay. So for tonight's discussion, I will introduce the project purpose and background. I'll then provide a brief overview of the various code amendments included within the project. Then I will share the approval criteria to be considered under the plan text amendment. And then at the end, the planning commission will have an opportunity to ask questions of staff before being asked to provide a recommendation to counsel on the project. Go to the next slide, please.

Getting a little tricky tonight.

So this project is part of the larger climate friendly and equitable communities program, which is a state mandate to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation with a focus on transportation planning and land use planning. So we've outlined the various components here on this slide. The first was designating climate friendly areas, which are high density mixed use areas. This was satisfied by Tualatin's compliance with Metro's 2040 growth concept. Tualatin also completed a parking reform component, which was met last year by adoption of ordinance fourteen eighty six dash 24.

And that leads us to our walkable design standards project before you tonight. This project is tied to the recent transportation system plan update. As the twenty forty five TSP update was adopted on August 11, staff had requested an alternative date to adopt the walkable design project standards from DLCD. This extension was requested to provide staff an opportunity to continue policy discussions with counsel on some of the state rules, which I'll get into later on in the presentation. The approved request is included in the packet as exhibit six, and that extends our adoption deadline to December 2025.

Next slide, please. So, the city of Tualatin received a technical assistance grant from Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to complete this project, similar to Madeline's project, and we also worked with a consulting firm, Mig. Under this project, they completed a code audit for us, and they also helped us draft the code amendments before you tonight. But the purpose of this project is to implement Oregon administrative rule three thirty through a set of development standards that support compact, pedestrian friendly, and mixed use land development patterns. Next slide, please.

The proposed code amendments were informed by a number of resources, including the code audit that I just mentioned, and that's been included as exhibit four. We also refer to the DLCD walkable design standards guidebook and model code, which I've included as exhibit three. We saw input from community stakeholders, which I'll cover on the next slide, and we also worked with council at work sessions. And this rulemaking is divided into four key topic areas, which include neighborhood connectivity, residential neighborhoods, commercial and mixed use districts, and auto oriented uses. Next slide, please.

So while the project responds to a state mandate, the following public engagement activities were included. May conducted two stakeholder meetings in late twenty twenty four and early twenty twenty five. The focus groups included transportation advocates and development professionals. These groups provided general project support, including support for shorter block lengths, safety standards for mid block access ways, and setback redact reductions as described in exhibit five. We also held three work sessions with council to gain general project acceptance and policy direction.

Additionally, the project is highlighted on the Tualatin Planning website, and that includes an informational flyer, which is shown on this slide. And the city will also provide public noticing as required under the legislative process, which is outlined in our development code under chapter 32 subsection two fifty. Next slide, please.

So to nope. Just

rolling right through. It's okay. Don't worry. So we're on slide seven.

Okay.

Selecting everything. Okay. Okay. Mhmm. Thanks, Lindsay. Oh. Oh. Can we go back one? I haven't even touched. We're being haunted for spooky season? The right one anymore. You know?

French. First time.

Mhmm. Oh, thank you today. Oh, boy. Yeah.

K. Bear with us as we go through some technical difficulties. Oh, goodness.

It is probably my fault. I seem to bring malfunctions with me wherever I go lately.

I see. I didn't even touch anything that's going on.

Yeah. It feels like it's, like, auto selecting or something. Yeah.

Mhmm.

Okay. So, let's not use SharePoint. K. Is there a way to get out of this altogether? Okay. Let's let's just close the whole thing down. I'm gonna try something a little different here. Oh, yeah. Go. Yeah. Just, yeah, just close everything but our Zoom meeting out. Yeah. Maybe stop sharing for a second. Okay. Alright.

And then let's yeah. Close. Let's just close everything. K. A piece of. Okay. And then is there a browser on this computer? There's gotta be because we're on Zoom. No. We we don't wanna start anything. Let's let's just we're gonna close all this out. Nope. It's just going a little bit haywire. Unbelievable. Okay.

Alright. Now can you open another browser? Okay. And no. Don't touch SharePoint. Do that one. Go to go to the home page that's linked up there. No. No. Let's just go online to the worldwide webs. Okay. Agreed. Thank you. And then Open. Yes. We're gonna open up the PDF that's online, which I don't that might be a little different.

That's okay. That works fine for me, and I think that's very smart. Okay.

Not that one. No. No. It wasn't that that that one. And then that second link, presentation. Oh, come on, mouse. You can get there. You can do it.

The batteries quit or something, the mouse?

It's too far away, I think. I think. I don't I don't know for sure. Okay. Freaked out. Alright. And then we were on seven, I think you said. There you go. See if this is a little more stable. Oh, okay. Now you have to share again. I'm sorry.

Okay. And we're back. So with this slide, we're going to take a deeper dive into our key topic areas, the first being the neighborhood connectivity rules that apply to land divisions, which include new streets. The rules require a connected network of streets, paths, and access ways that provide pedestrian and bicycle connectivity within the neighborhood and two adjacent districts. These standards were largely adopted under the TSP.

However, this project proposes minor revisions, to chapter seventy four and seventy five as requested by our engineering staff just to refine certain key points. But as you can see on the slide, maximum block length standards for streets designated with a local classification, so those are generally our residential streets, were reduced from 530 feet to 400 feet, and that's in chapter 74. We also established a maximum block perimeter standard that is consistent with four times the block length. The length was recommended by our consultant, Mig, as it serves as a middle ground for the recommendations included in the model code, and it's compatible with our minimum lot widths in our lower residential, density zones. The block length requirements can be satisfied either through public streets, alleys, or mid block pedestrian and bicycle access ways.

And the TSP amendments also added a requirement that new cul de sacs provide a direct pedestrian and bicycle connection to nearby public pedestrian facilities. That way those using active forms of transportation don't have to use the meandering cul de sacs to get to a destination. They can connect directly to, a higher classification street to get to where they're going. Next slide, please. And I'm excited about these additions to our code.

We added design standards for public alleys and private streets in chapter 74 to promote predictable and functional designs. This means our code now provides flexibility for residential development to provide driveway access from alleys. This eliminates the need for curb cuts along the street frontage, providing for a safer pedestrian realm and the possibility of more on street parking as shown in the top picture. We also expanded mid block access way standards in support of pedestrian comfort and safety. Some of these new standards include lighting requirements and slope limitations.

Next slide. The next concept is residential neighborhoods. These rules apply to new residential development and address building setback, orientation, and access for efficient and sociable development patterns. And that's the state language efficient and sociable development patterns. Under this project, we propose reductions to setback requirements in most residential zones.

The code audit included as exhibit four found that Twalton requires relatively large minimum front setbacks that range between 20 to 35 feet based on structure height. The existing setback requirements limit how much of a site can be built and inhibit the relationship between the sidewalk and the building. Conversely, the DLCD model code recommends providing a maximum front setback at between 10 to 20 feet, and our proposed amendments better align with those model code requirements in chapters 41 through 44. The project also includes a maximum setback requirement in our higher density zones after under chapters forty three and forty four to address recommendations in the model code. The amendments include flexibility that allows a pedestrian amenity to meet some of the setback requirement too.

Additionally, the proposal includes building orientation standards for multifamily development on local streets. That was a recommendation from our stakeholder group. Chapter 73 a amendments require that the main entry of a multifamily building either face the street or a courtyard that abuts the street. It also requires that a percentage of ground floor units take individual entry to the street, and you see that commonly in more urban development. Next slide, please.

So the third concept pertains to commercial and mixed use districts. These rules call for compact development patterns, easy ability to walk or use mobility devices, and direct access to pedestrian, bicycle, and public transportation networks. Similar to the previously discussed standards for residential neighborhoods, minimum setback, maximum setback, and entry standards are proposed in the city's commercial zones that better align with

the model

code. In the neighborhood commercial and central commercial zones under chapters fifty one and fifty three, we propose reduced minimum setback requirements and the inclusion of maximum setback requirements. The project also includes amendments to chapter 73 a that require main commercial building entries to face the public sidewalk. Next slide, please. The project also clarifies walkable requirements to avoid conflicts in vehicular areas.

Additionally, parking location standards have been added that prohibit parking areas between the public street and the proposed building to comply with the state rulemaking. We have that format in our mixed use commercial zones, so now that's going to be, included for all these commercial zones going forward. We also include exceptions language, when compliance with the standards is impractical or the proposal equally or better meets the purpose of the standard. So there's a little bit of flexibility there. Next slide.

And the final concept is auto oriented uses. These rules apply to drive through facilities and uses related to the operation, sale, maintenance, or fueling of motor vehicles. The rules ensure auto oriented uses are compatible with walkability and the use of mobility devices. The amendments proposed expand chapter 73 a requirements for drive throughs. The state requires a provision of walk up service areas for all drive through uses that provide access to goods and services that are equivalent to or better than access for people driving.

So we show an example of a walk up window on this slide, and a walk in lobby could also satisfy this requirement. Next slide, please. Additionally, the state guidelines and model code recommend prohibiting drive through facilities in pedestrian oriented zones. Tualatin has two pedestrian oriented zones, the central commercial overlay zone, which is our downtown, and the mixed use commercial zone, which is shown here. As drive throughs are already restricted in the commercial Tualton overlay zone, We asked council if it made sense to prohibit drive throughs in the mixed use commercial zone.

And after a robust work session discussion in September, council directed staff to prohibit the use under PTA twenty five zero zero two. So you'll see that in our code amendments.

Can I jump in for that? Yeah. That was at that actually took two rounds of discussion to come to that conclusion. So it there was a lot of questions and thought about it. Right. Because there has

been discussions about drive through things going through in that area before. Correct. Correct? And so this would totally limit or not allow it at all. Correct? Correct.

And as

part of this process, we'll be sending measure 56 notices to the impacted property owners too, so they'll be alerted to some of the changes that restrict their zone and some of their property rights.

Okay. That's good.

And then next slide, please. So a detailed analysis and findings for PTA twenty five dash zero zero two have been included in your packet as exhibit one. These findings demonstrate that the proposal complies with the relevant state, regional, and local approval criteria, which are listed on this slide. Next slide. So we're kinda getting into my conclusionary statements.

The state rulemaking provides development regulations for pedestrian friendly and connected neighborhoods, an urban form that focuses on walkability, reduces dependence on driving, lowers transportation pollution, and promotes more active lifestyles. So under this project, a recommendation of adoption of PTA 25 dash zero zero zero two to city council would update regulations in the development code to comply with the state rulemaking for compact urban development. And as such, the planning commission is being asked to forward a recommendation to our city council for these amendments. And then on the next slide, I have some next steps that I wanted to go over before I open it up to questions and deliberation. So here, as next steps, we'll undertake our public noticing for legislative process, and we tentatively have our city council hearing scheduled on November 24 for this project.

And that's the conclusion of my presentation, and I can open it up to questions.

Do you wanna go first, Randy?

I I have three, so I

Okay.

Take them all at once or alternate.

I say start with them.

Okay. Yeah. Late today, we received a whole bunch of letters from stakeholders about the driveway issue. Can you help us understand what the current current approval process or whatever for a driveway is and how the proposal changes that and why it's changing it?

Question. So advanced in the next slide.

That's one. Oh, it oh,

I see. Because Well

well Well, as we start to answer, we can I don't know if we wanna try our SharePoint?

Can we go to the exhibit two document on our

It's a good idea.

And then it's under chapter 33.

You said 33. But you should be able to oh, five. On page five. And then scroll down. I keep

yeah. We'll Okay.

We'll start there. So as some context, we do have a a definition for a driveway approach in chapter thirty one sixty, and the driveway approach is pretty much what's in the public right away. So it's just the throat and the apron of the driveway, not the actual driveway itself on private property. So these applications are more in our engineering's realm, and they have some processes in place that weren't necessarily codified. So this is an attempt to codify some process that they had relating to their driveway approach review process.

I think what I heard from the public comments is that there was concern around some of the language, particularly as it could apply to larger development, like industrial development or commercial development. They provided a specific example where maybe an industrial development would have a gated access and that through some of these amendments, pertaining to a type one review process, there was concern that maybe, removal of a gate would be considered on the under this permit type, which is not the case. So, generally, in that case, if you're removing a gate, usually, fire life and safety, special district is involved, or perhaps the gates in place, for access limitations. So that would be a change of use or a change of capacity to our trans transportation network, which would be reviewed under a type two application. So that would be impacts to both the private development and the public transportation network.

This particular permit is just limited to the throat, and some of the changes we're making pertain to a type one review for residential development and for existing driveway approaches that are going to be maintained. And that would also include a, why am I drawing a blank on this, public works permit.

Okay. So

I don't know if that helps answer your question, but I think some of the concerns we heard would not be applicable to this review process. And in an attempt to maybe assuage some of their concerns, we removed the term alter from this language. We have altering and alteration included in our existing language, and we felt that that could be considered quite broad. Our application of alter was mainly the altering of materials. So as development processes, provide for better material, like, dense concrete or durable concrete, The intent was that the alteration of an existing driveway could be updated material for better durability for industrial development.

The picture I was getting was a concern that if, for example, an industrial user wanted to establish a new entry into their plant site, that this was a type one approval across the planning department desk without considering the impact of what that might have on left and right turns and cross traffic and everything else. Is that is that not part of this?

So we're not changing how we would review those concerns. Those would still be under a type two process.

Okay.

So we aren't amending that process at all. Okay. So a new driveway that would impact a commercial or an industrial user would still require a type two review.

And that's public notice and okay. A chance to appeal locally, not to circuit court.

Right. Right.

Okay. Okay.

I had a question on the driveways too. So, I mean, I guess just to get basic. Everybody in my neighborhood's fail driveways are, like,

failing currently, and so they're replacing them. Would this affect those, like, residential driveways? This provides a clear path for residential driveways under a type one process. So if they're looking to maintain their existing driveways, we now have this easier process for them to engage our engineering division in.

Okay. So it'd be easier for them. But do they have to narrow it? Like, if they have a not necessarily. That's what I was struggling with is I was feeling like, are they gonna have to also go and narrow all their driveways if they had, like, a three car drive you know, three car driveway, and now they have to go down to a two.

Well, it so, I'll jump in for a second. So, like, Erin was saying, it's not the driveway itself.

It's the throat.

Just the throat. Okay. And this shouldn't change that. Like like you're saying, if the materials are failing and they just need to replace it, I think we would just consider that under this description of reconstructing. And then part of part of the reason that we put residential review in here is for that purpose.

So a little bit of, like, context, backstory of kinda how we got here, but I think I'm gonna go back, like, six or seven, maybe even more years where folks homeowners would come in to fix their driveway. And because that approach, let me say the right words, is in the public right of way, we'd require this right of way permit that required the homeowner or the contractor to carry, like, 1 or $2,000,000 worth of insurance. And the homeowner's like, I can't make that happen. And so our engineering group started trying to figure out, okay. How can we doesn't it make sense.

How can we make this an easier process? So they they did. Our our staff went forward and made a different process for for residential. In the meantime, that wasn't ever codified. So they kinda have this, like, separate process happening, trying to make things easier.

Meanwhile, our code still said, if you're gonna do this, you need this type two review. So not only did they need, you know, all this insurance, but then they needed a land use application, and we're gonna send notice to a thousand, you know, neighbors within a thousand feet. And, like, okay. So it came to our attention during this CFSEC process that we've actually got two competing we've got our code that says one thing. We're trying to make things easier that's not codified.

So that that's why we added this a residential review where, if if it's residential use and you're taking access from a local street, then you go through the type one. But if it's residential use and you have to take access from anything other than local collector. Arterial would be one of the other ones. But anything other than local, then we need to review it because we need to look at spacing and what else is around there. So so that's why this was that a was specifically added.

And then b is, like, if you're just so any other use, even if it's not residential and you're just trying to reconstruct because materials are failing. Like, that's a lot of burden on property owner, the contractor, staff to do a type two review to, you know, fix it, basically. So that's why that section is, a type one. And then anything else is you go through the normal the or or the the normal the previous, like, you know, type two review with the notice and that kind of thing. So, yeah, a new one.

If you're so I'm gonna pick on your neighborhood. If your neighbor decides, like, I well, we have seen this before where they've got one driveway off a local street, but they've got a RV or a boat and they wanna pull it in off of another street. Well, if that street is not local, if that's a collector, they'll have to go through that type two process. Right?

So No. That makes sense. Okay. Yeah. That totally makes sense to me. Yeah. Okay. That actually helped me quite a bit, so that's good.

So so let me let me just be a little bit or make certain I'm clear on this because I was struck from the public comments, the references to splitting the approval criteria between type one and type two, whereas right now, it's everything falls under one approval heading. Right?

No. No? Well,

you could probably scroll down to see the approval criteria.

Maybe I'm not understanding your question.

Previously, it it appeared from what from what I read that there's only a type two And now we're going to have type one and type two, which I interpret to be an effort to be more more sympathetic to the the needs of residential projects in particular. Fair enough?

That is absolutely correct. Okay. Yes. Yep.

Any other driveway questions? Okay. What's your second one, Randy?

Can we go to chapter 44?

Sure.

25.

There it is. Okay. So chapter four currently is the high density, high rise zoning district, and it was originally applied just to the central urban renewal part of the city, a very defined area in the heart of the city. And the proposal now is not just to change the name of the ordinance, but also to expand where this high density, high rise type activity can occur, and that's in the arterial and collector corridors. And are we defining corridors as those primary arterial, arterial, and collector streets as identified in the TSP?

Right. So the corridor intent would be to if somebody were to consider rezoning their land along a collector or an arterial, that could be the corridor.

K. And and that's where I have a real problem. Okay. So there are five residential zones in the city. This is the highest density.

Minimum 26 units per acre, maximum 30 to 45 depending on the housing type. And when this was initially applied to a very defined area in the heart of the city, the central area or central renewal zone, that made sense. High density, in close proximity to employment opportunities, commercial activities, municipal services and facilities, transit lines, the very essence of a walkable community. That's what it was. This expands it citywide.

And when we're talking about arterials and corridors, off the top of my head, we're talking about the entire length of Boones Ferry Road, Grahams Ferry Road, in this area, Tawallet And Herman, Leviton Road, out on the East, Nyberg, and even Borland, and then 65th, 90th, 1 24th, Avery, Teton, and Norwood. And what this would allow is for an applicant to try to upzone from in pockets of vacant and redevelopable property that are often surrounded by low density residential to the highest density available. Now few months ago, we went through this experience with these rezoning requests along Norwood to high density high rise, and that created a firestorm of controversy. Understandably, we heard about traffic impacts, noise, privacy privacy, and so on. And my the planning commission recommended denial of that application.

And, ultimately, at the city councilor, the developer sensed what was coming and withdrew the application. This, in my opinion, invites more of that. And not only does it create the initial incompatibility of a high density, very high density facility surrounded by established residential neighborhoods, but we're also because we're changing the setbacks or reducing the setbacks by 20 feet, that even creates more fuel for the fire. I would suggest that we table this because I think there's a better approach to meeting the city's housing needs, higher density housing needs that goes back to 2019, and it was the Tualatin housing needs analysis project advisory committee that came up with a whole bunch of strategies, actions, and recommendations. And one of those recommendations was to evaluate merging the high density, high rise zone with the high density zone and considering expanding the density and the height requirements, melding them into one zone.

That to me makes more sense of applying a higher density to areas that are already zoned for high density rather than opening it up to the problems that we saw with Norwood. And and what I would like to suggest is that we table this proposal and pursue that evaluation that was recommended by that advisory committee back in 2019.

Is there a clock ticking on this?

We, under our extension, have committed to adopting code that largely complies with the state rulemaking by December 2025.

So what part of this specifically was part of the state rulemaking to comply with it? Did we have to put it onto arterials? Like, is that part of the requirement?

So we opened this chapter to amend some setbacks. I believe for this one, we made our setback standards more objective. Previously, our setbacks varied based off of stories, but stories can vary in height. So we decided to adjust from stories to building height to be a bit more clear. We also provided some maximum setbacks, I believe, in this zone to comply with the state guidance.

Right. But since we opened this chapter, I think some of the staff feel that high rise may not be the right title for such a zone because it's limited. I believe this is 64 feet or up to six stories. So it just kinda seemed like I believe, like, in a suburban community, hearing high rise probably elicits some fear. And I I I think, like, a six story building shouldn't really maybe elicit the fear that a high rise does.

But

Okay. So but does but does it have to open to the street specific? Because I think that's our issue. Like, I have to agree with Randy. Like, I feel like it should be in the core too. I I get nervous when you open it up potentially on all those roads.

Yeah. Well, that I think the staff's intent was that through the plan map amendment process or the rezoning process, we could evaluate if a location that was desired actually met our approval criteria and was appropriate, because, yes, there are certain areas along our collector or arterial corridors that lack amenities. But I think the intent was that, generally, those larger classification streets are the ones that we pull amenities from, including employment and commercial uses. So we saw some compatibility there, and that was kind of our intent, and we thought that we would scrutinize it more through the rezoning process, but I hear what you're saying.

My my concern with that is that had this been in place when we heard the Horizon request, this would have provided more justification for the developer's application. And without this, though, a developer any an applicant can still request a rezoning to this anywhere they want it. So I don't see that we're we're gaining anything. I think we're hurting ourselves more. And check me on this, Aaron, but I think all of the changes to the setbacks, maximum and minimum and everything else, the criteria for high density high rise pretty much is exactly what is being proposed to change in the high densities, zone.

Could you put that another way? I don't think I understand.

Yeah. You're we're pulling the front setback back from 35 or 30 feet to 10 or 15 feet in the HR.

You can scroll down if we wanna read

it. I think all of I would have to check this, but I think it just parallels what we're proposing to do in the high density district.

I believe they are similar.

Yeah.

Correct. The state guidance was to bring our let me see. Make sure I speak adequately to this.

A little bit further.

There you go. We're in there.

Yeah. So the state guidance was 10 to 20 feet for front. Yeah.

I I think this all matches. Mhmm. So, again, what I'm what I'm wondering is is if it's necessary to do something with the h d h r zone, this is taking a big policy change to apply it to the corridors. It it would also be a big change even just to meld the two together and and forget the HR designation and apply the high density requirements. We're going from what what is the minimum density in h in h high density?

The high density zone 16 to 24, I think it is, or 25. 16 to 25. And here, it's 25 to 30. We're adding five more units per acre to the height. We would be adding five more units per acre to the high density zone if we would take that recommendation right now and just pull the two together, meld them together, apply this density, and call it a new high density zone. I I that's what I'm suggesting is somewhere along the line.

I think something that was I'm sorry. Just to clarify for me, earlier, the question was asked, you know, if this particular portion were to be struck or tables for for further review, would that prevent would would would moving this particular issue out of the recommendation prevent us from meeting the state's requirements, or is this is this an issue that I I I think I was understanding you you were saying that since we were already getting in and changing things around that staff had thought that it would be a convenient time to to sort of touch on this issue that they thought was confusing. And I I wasn't certain from your response whether or not if we tabled this, that would that would get in the way of our immediate compliance with the state's with the state's policy.

Great question. So I

think if we Next question.

If we

tabled the changes to the zoning title and the purpose statement, but proceeded with the setback changes that would comply with the state requirements.

Okay.

Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. Is it

just in the purpose statement where it says that applies to? Yeah. So you can literally just remove that line.

And the title.

And, yeah, if you wanted

to, yeah, if you wanted to

keep the title the way it was.

And some of the staff sentiment with the purpose statement

Changes it to reports.

To the urban renewal district that is no longer active. Right.

So That that was part of it. Yeah. I think part of my concern too oh, go ahead, Zach.

I was just gonna say I think I agree with with you and Randy that that this change extending that high density zone that far away from where it has historically been, especially in in in the context of where it would be reaching and what's already there, does seem like something of a drastic shift. And I I I, at very least, would like more time to consider that change. And I just I I wanna make sure that we're not gonna send ourselves back by asking for that time, in terms of state compliance. So I think that's that's the direction I would like to go is to revisit this question.

Yeah. I I agree. And I I feel like it's a little bit at least me we're we're trying to develop the core. Right? Like, that's where we have this whole new vision. I feel like if we start opening up other spots, it doesn't make the focus of doing that kind of back to the core just a little bit. I feel like it could distract potentially. I mean, potentially, but that would be my thoughts a little bit too.

Okay. Yeah. Great feedback.

There there I think you have valid reasons for eliminating the designation of the Central Urban Renewal Area. Apparently, that's no longer in existence, or we've expanded it or something. So the the need to address that is valid, but we're taking a big step without, I think, a lot of consideration doing this.

Oh, I guess maybe we all feel comfortable moving forward if we could not change the name or purpose statement Yeah. And make your other changes is That'd be all. Is is does everybody sort of agree with that

That would make me

of generally?

Make that into a motion.

Oh, yeah. Well, we'll motion at the end, but I'm just sort of saying these we we still have to have a couple more questions, and then we'll make that into a motion at the end.

Yep. K. Is there any

okay. Yep.

I would say to possibly changing the name to the high rise is a terrible name.

Okay. So I mean, we could get rid of the high rise. Yeah. I mean, do you have a problem with getting rid the high rise or

anything?

Well, if we do that, then it becomes high density, and we have that in chapter 43. That's what

Oh, yeah.

We ultimately

get And I density.

Okay. Well, you could go high density. Oh, but then it has the quarter.

No. You're right.

Maybe you

just have to you're right. Table that.

Yeah.

You're right, Randy. Yeah. Okay.

That's that's where I hope we ultimately end up. Yeah. Okay.

Maybe it's potentially a high density downtown zone. But Sure. Right.

We could

like because right now, the only place that exists in the city is in the central area, so we could differentiate by calling it the central high density zone.

I mean, I feel good about that

as opposed to the Mhmm. High density zone.

How do you define central?

Oh, I guess that's true. Well, it

We could we could if if we're we could acknowledge that we're changing, like, we're discontinuing the Central Urban Renewal Area, and we could define our high density downtown zone as contiguous with the previous Central Urban Renewal Area. If that's the area we're wanting to target, we could just explicitly say this is the new terminology referring to that same same area.

It Zach, there there's wetland when when we did the when we looked at this before

Mhmm.

With the Horizon project, there were wetlands issues and access issues and other issues that

I'm sure there are. That's that's part of why I'm I'm really thinking this is a question that's I'm glad it was brought up, and I think we need a lot more time to to hand it out because I think that it's gonna be a thorny one.

I think we could describe central by the kind of second part of that strikeout where it says I think this is what you were saying, commissioner Ledick, but north of the wetlands and south of the Tualatin Country Club that are suitable for high density apartment or condominium towers. That would be one way to zero in on what we mean by central.

Leave the descriptions? Oh, I kinda like Janelle's concept of just leaving the title and the purpose the way it is right now, going ahead and changing the setbacks. And at some point in the future, if we could have this discussion of where high dent high highest density is allowed, whether that's merging the two the the two ordinances as suggested by that advisory committee or looking around at other places in the city where highest density might be appropriate. If if that gets us past this deadline for now and then having the discussion later. I

mean, I'm okay. I know it leaves the central urban renewal area that doesn't really exist anymore on there, which it doesn't feel good when you guys are cleaning up the code and then we leave it. Right? But maybe that would be easier for them moving forward. What are you guys how does the city how do you guys feel about that?

Well, at this point, I I think it's kinda up to what you all want. I'm I mean, I'm personally comfortable with what it says North Of The Wetlands and South Of Dwelling Country Club because that's when you look at a zoning map, that's where it is. But if if you, if your direction is to leave it as it is and come back at some later date to look at both districts, and that's

that that works too.

I'm gonna do it. Is that

Is that what how do you guys feel?

Yep.

Come back later?

Yeah.

Look at

it later?

Yeah.

Okay.

I have a point of order. Okay. This is Brett Hamilton over here in Zoom land.

Okay.

Will there be an opportunity for public comment for items that are on the agenda?

Yes. There will be at the end.

Before you've decided and deliberated?

You mean on this specific topic?

On this, yes, this, this action item.

The Yes. Absolutely. Time. Before before we before we, we'll ask for some public comment for sure.

Super. Super. Thank you.

K. Brandy, you got you had one more question?

Yeah. One more thing. Like I said earlier, I was real pleased to see that there was a focus group involved early on, TSP members as well as architects and developers. What what I'm a little bit uncomfortable doing at this point in time is recommending approval of all these changes without hearing the reaction from those focus groups to what came out, what what is presented before us. And the reason for that is, at least with the architects and developers, they made several cautionary comments about, if you do this, it could kill the project.

We need flexibility, etcetera, etcetera. And so I was hoping for a follow-up with them to see if their concerns were addressed in the changes that are going forward. I'm I'm willing to forward this to the council, but I wish we would had a public hearing on it. And and I'm curious how the folks that that sent all the document documentation about the driveways, was this noticed in some regard? How did they come together so quickly and and bombard us with their test? Test. Clearly, somebody somebody wrote a sample letter. Yeah.

I'm As we see so often.

We might hear from them later, but I'm assuming that they were looking at planning commission agendas and caught this item. We haven't begun our public engagement process yet for this legislative project. We were going to be starting that process shortly after this meeting.

Okay. And what will that consist of, Erin?

So we do notify DLCD. We also put notice in the Tualatin Times. We post, notice of the application in two places within the city as required by our code. We'll also reach out to our CIO groups and our special districts and special agents that we work with.

Okay. And also to the members of those focus groups?

We could follow-up with them. The way our funding with MIG was set up only allowed for that initial focus group, but staff can certainly reach out and follow-up with them.

Yeah. I I would feel more comfortable if they were individually given notice that this is coming forward so that they could respond at least at the council's hearing. Yeah. But but, again, going forward, Janelle, I'm I'm kind of inclined to recommend opening this up to the public review. But personally, right now, I'm not real I'm not against any of this stuff.

I just don't I would like to hear from the public what the reaction is. And in the same way that we heard about the driveways, you've explained to us really what the impact is, and I would like to have that kind of feedback with the developers and the architects and the transportation group to have that kind of back and forth a little bit. So that's Yeah. I I would be forwarding it for public review, but I'm not at the point of approving recommending approval to the council of the changes.

You would wanna forward with, I mean, we're we're actually gonna hear the comments online, of course, too. But you would like to see so you don't wanna send an approval, and you wanna send some sort of

Open it up to public review.

Okay.

Yeah. Because I don't think we this isn't a we don't have a formal hearing for this tonight, do we?

The hearing would be at city council in

November. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So, see, there was not a whole

So we're giving a recommendation. So what we could do is give a recommendation with the public Mhmm. Input

Yeah.

Correct, as a piece of that.

Yeah.

Correct? You say

public input. Would that be the stakeholder groups that we've already

We could say exactly who we want it to be or who we think it should be.

Yeah. I'd have to think about that. Yeah.

Okay. So you think about that. And, okay. I'm gonna take the comments from online unless you guys have anything else that you want. I I had one.

This is a seemingly unrelated point, but it it it occurred to me that and maybe it's maybe it is totally unrelated. But we're talking about bike and pedestrian friendly and and in many different areas that that we're focused on as a city right now, ignoring the elephant in the room, which is scooters and e bikes. Uh-huh. Yeah. True. And the longer we do that, the longer the longer we continue to ignore that and and have to deal with the content with with the conflict between those vehicle types and

Pedestrian.

The

public and pedestrians, The worse it's going to be when we ultimately do have to deal with it. So I wonder if this if there's any role for that concern working its way into into this consideration, I gather not. I actually had prepared a motion to try to bring this to to to to broader awareness, which I'd be happy to put forward. Or if people think that's going too far, I won't.

Could you expand on your concerns when it comes to those devices? Are you talking about on the existing sidewalk?

Or

On the sidewalk, on this and on the street as well. Or are they, can they legally use bike lanes, for exam? I think they can, but I'm not sure. But it it's mostly it it it it's a pedestrian safety and all but also vehicular safety issue.

So you're looking for regulations of scooters and ebikes?

Right.

K. So is it within it's probably not within the scope of this. Correct? Or is that

I see a degree that that's that goes well beyond the scope of what we're talking about here.

Yeah. Although, I do agree with you. I almost get hit by the scooters all the time on the paths in the parks. Yeah.

So a couple of thoughts. One is that the climate friendly equitable communities does talk about mobility devices. I think they they have a term that's supposed to kind of encompass everything you just mentioned.

Mobility devices usually understood to mean electric wheelchairs, things of that nature, not bicycles and, ebikes and scooters.

Right. And I think that the OAR has broadly defined it. So they they have considered they the folks that wrote the OARs were wanting that to be part of the consideration, as just one thought. Second thought is that, I think I don't know. We've heard this a lot.

You're concerned, like, a lot recently. It's come up quite a bit. And, it came up in the c c the CIO land use officer meeting. So there is some I think it's more of a CIO effort maybe in conjunction with the city a little bit to start some kind of education or, like, just public education around safety of these devices. I think there are some regulations that are either supposed to be in effect or maybe that are being talked about about how fast some of these things can actually go.

The the Lime scooters that the city has, they have, like, a maximum of, I think, like, 15 miles an hour. But the ones that aren't, you know, part of that, contract, if you will, like, can go a lot faster than that. So it's definitely a concern that's come up that we're starting to kinda talk about, like, you know, how do we get our hands around it? Because I'm not sure who necessarily regulates it. Like, maybe it's police giving speeding tickets. I'm not sure yet, but that's so we're starting to have those conversations a little bit.

I had I've had an informal conversation with the police department many, many months ago, long before I was on the commission. And the reaction basically was we got better things to do, which I understand. I completely understand.

Sure. Yeah. So yeah. So it's it's something that we have yet Used to be raised. Probably what we solved by these regulations. Was that, there was a kind of a tragic accident, and so I don't know if your conversation was before or after that accident, but that may have brought some more awareness to to what the city's role is in those.

K. Is there any other further questions from anybody here? Nope. Zach, do you have anything online?

I'm clear. Thank you.

Okay. So I know that there was some online I think it was Brett, you had some comments you wanted to give, and if there's any others. Why don't you go ahead first, Brett?

Yeah. Thank you very much, chair. Thank you to the staff for and the commissioners for clarifying the driveway approach process. That's very helpful and gives us some some something to be solid on. I'd like to comment on the medium low density, the RML setback changes.

I live in an RML zone up here off to Alton Road in David's Fox Run, and there's very few areas in Tualatin that are single family houses in RML. They're little scattered little pockets. So I just wanna make sure that that our interests are represented because I know, like, a massive amount of residential in Tualatin is low density. And so their their zoning setbacks are not being changed. So I don't think that Tualatin's walkability problem is caused by front yards being too big, specifically these front yard setbacks.

Our neighborhoods are very walkable as long as your destination is a local park. But if you want to go to retail or dining, you have to take a very busy street to get there walking, and I think that is the real issue with walkability. The TSP pedestrian level of traffic stress map shows this. And so if we want to improve walkability in Tualatin especially for the outlying residential areas, I think the solution is not smaller front yards. The solution is more multiuse paths and these neighborhood routes to connect people to the to the pass through their neighborhood streets so they can walk or bike to their destination without having to go onto a commuter a busy commuter arterial.

In established neighborhoods, allowing structures to be built closer to the street will not make those neighborhoods more walkable, but it will make them more crowded and less desirable. It's my understanding that the setbacks part of this code change is not actually required by the state law. It is being pushed through at the request of developers. A code change like this should require more public notice and more public input, and I think maybe you guys were kind of headed in that direction, so I applaud that. I would ask for the city to reach out to property owners and residents in the affected RML zones for feedback.

If developers want to build at higher density than the RML allows and if the RMH, the high density is too dense for them, I would suggest that instead of changing the RML setbacks that the city consider creating a new medium density zone for new development to meet the needs of those developers. But to retroactively change the setbacks of existing established neighborhoods, I don't think that's the right way to meet the needs of density for future development. So thank you very much for your consideration and for working on this project.

Thanks, Brett. Okay. Is there anybody else online who would like to share some comments about, this proposal? Okay. Looks like not. Okay. Anybody else have any comments or questions after public comment?

Well, I just like to hear a reaction from the staff. Yeah.

Okay.

So maybe some thoughts I can share back is that through the CFAC rulemaking process, the state did do a large engagement process on their own when considering changes to the rules and some of their guidance and model code, that they've released to local jurisdictions for adoption. So in some ways, the state took care of the the broader public engagement process, and now local governments are being told thou shalt, and here are the guidelines. So in some ways, we have some room to color within, but largely, the state's telling us where we should be going.

Right. Okay. Well, I can tell if

that Yeah. Additional. Yeah. That that's correct. I mean, this this is basically as a result of our the code audit and what we need to do to comply with the state guidelines.

But I do wanna point out that the, setbacks are not changing for single family detached duplex, townhouse, triplex, or quadplex. The setbacks change for a multifamily, which is five or more units, conditional uses, and other permitted uses that aren't listed. And then the the setback change is based on height, and it it is a reduction. So if it's anything less than 25 feet in height, the new requirement is 10 feet, and previously, it would have been 25 feet. So there is a there is a change there, but I it's not, it's limited to the housing type, I think, is basically what I'm trying to say.

So

the r m I mean, I'm may get all mixed up, but the the zoning he was talking about, it'd only be affected if it was a multifamily apartment or the other contingencies. Right. Correct. Yes. K.

You guys have any other comments, thoughts, questions?

This so Go ahead, Justin. For the low density zones, the the setback's not changing at all. Like, if it's 25 feet, it's still 25 feet.

I think that's right. I don't see any changes to low density. That's correct. Right. So the, yeah, the the it's the medium low density.

Mhmm.

The next one up, I guess.

Which So, really, for, like, doing infill development and on those lots, unless they're gonna do a large infill development, is the only way they'd able to take advantage of that. So if you have a single family and you're gonna convert to a duplex or triplex or fourplex, you're not gonna get a reduction.

That's correct.

Yeah. Yeah. That's a probably a disadvantage then for infill by not reducing those sub x.

Okay. Be correct.

Yeah. I mean, it's just less land to develop on because if you have a single family lot, it's like Yeah. Yeah. 500 square feet or 5,000 square feet and you wanna try to convert that over, it's not

Yeah.

It does limit the redevelopment potential.

Yeah. Yeah. If you can't maximize to get your floor ratios and everything you need for Yeah.

I just don't wanna point it out to the state that it would be a disadvantage for infill because that's what

That was their whole purpose.

Yeah. Yeah.

Would there be any reason for not changing them? Or, I mean, it'd be I I heard his reasoning for it, but, I mean, realistically, to for somebody to make a huge modification. I mean, even if

we're Well, I think they can't is part of the point. Right? The states mandated some of those changes that are in there. Correct?

Right. Yeah. Yeah. I'm I'm not sure I understood your your last

Oh, to shrink our setbacks because we already have large setbacks here in a

Is there any reason not to shrink them?

Is that

what you're asking?

For all development, not just to limit it to multi family development or a large scale redevelopment lot because it'd be pretty difficult to see in a lot of these areas. But to say, okay. For infill type development, we you there are options to reduce your setback from the 25 feet or the 20 feet that's required to bring it down to bring it in line with a lot of other communities that are in the area that currently have tens or fifteens on them.

I think that's where you're gonna get the neighborhoods upset. Right? And so that's what that's why you guys have tried to keep it. You've tried to go middle of the road so that you're meeting it but not upsetting as many people.

It's a very conscious approach to, I guess, with our lower density zones to not overstep more than the state guidelines.

Yeah.

K. So that's why they Yeah. Didn't go further.

If you have a different, leisure, I guess we could consider

some More.

Yeah. Public engagement around that, but it seems

Well, I think that's a that would be a really interesting concept to explore through our why is the title blanking on me? Production enough? Housing production? Yeah. Housing capacity. If we are to encourage more production, would decreasing the setbacks you know, would that actually encourage more? So that might be a concept we could explore with that project, which is not happening for a while because we have other projects to do.

Yeah. This Takes a long time to get to that point. Yeah. It's also a very slow process of redeveloping and developed suburban areas anyhow Right. Of that before it even hits. So the idea that subbacks are reproduced, then we're gonna have this. And there was a lot of scare in Portland that we're gonna have with the infill code, and there's just rash of infill development in there, and it's really not changed much.

Mhmm.

Okay. It was just dictated by the market. So yeah. Yeah.

But the the projects you've highlighted, like, potentially reviewing setbacks or combining our two higher density zones have been identified in our housing production strategy. It's just having the capacity and the direction from council to engage in those projects and study them more.

K. I see Brett raised his hand again. Would you like to add one more comment, Brett?

Yeah. Have a question. I'm looking at on exhibit two, pages sixteen and seventeen, specifically the single family detached duplex, townhouse, triplex, and quadplex setbacks. And I'm either I'm reading this wrong or there's some disagreement as to we're not all on the same page about like, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the minimum setbacks for the single family detached RML are are shrinking per this proposal on page sixteen and seventeen?

The things that are changing are are in strikeout. So they if if you're looking specifically at where it says front and then next to it, it says 10 feet. That's okay. I'm checking with Erin, but that's current. That's not Right. That's the current setback.

Oh. We're not amending the setbacks to apply to the single family detached, put another way.

Yeah. It's only

Oh, I gotcha. I see.

Yeah.

It's Okay. Thank you. Very sorry for taking your time.

It's no. It's good.

Good to good to clarify. We'll to clarify that for you. Okay. Any other comments or questions? How do we feel about I guess I'm just gonna throw something out there. We can decide how we feel about it. How do we feel about motioning or recommending it forward with, of course, not changing the title or the purpose statement of the high density high rise? Also recommending that we feel like before decisions made, they need public outreach and maybe specify a little bit of that. Like, who would you like I mean, do we say what we want for public outreach? How do you feel about that, Randy?

Here's what I would propose. Okay. I'm not ready to make a motion, but here's what I would lay on the table, that we move to recommend the release for public review of PA twenty five zero two to amend the TDC blah blah blah blah blah with the following caveats, that the members of the two focus groups be included in the notification of the public hearing,

and

that the proposed change to the title and purpose of chapter 44 be tabled and the application of the HDHR zone be evaluated for appropriate areas of the city?

At a later date or something.

At a later well, sure. Okay.

Okay.

You feel okay about that, Al? Yeah.

Justin? Mhmm. We'll go to Zach. Do were you able to hear Randy?

I was, actually. It's very clear. I I liked what he closed.

Yeah. Maybe clean up blah blah blah.

Yeah. Well He wrote it.

Yeah. Was definitely Blah blah blah

is easier than what I'm gonna

Yes. Like, three blahs. Or

Oh, okay. Alan, you asked for it. So I'm ready to make a motion.

Okay.

Okay. I move to recommend the release for public review of PTA 25 dash zero zero zero two, comma, to amend the Tualatin Development Code to implement climate friendly and equitable communities walkable design standards and comply with OAR sixty six zero zero one two dash zero three three zero with the following caveats. One, that the members of the two focus groups be included in the notification of the public hearing and two, that the proposed changes to the title and purpose of TDC Chapter 44 be tabled and the application of the HDHR zone be evaluated for appropriate areas of the city at a later date?

I'll second it.

Okay. Do we wanna have a vote? Yeah.

Zach, you ready to vote too?

I'm ready.

Okay. Alright. Those in favor of the motion as Randy read it, raise your hands.

My hand is raised for the record.

K. Motion to approve. Okay. Were you guys able to capture sense of that? To.

It's being recorded.

Okay. And it's being recorded too. Okay. Do you need me to come because I know that do do I need to go to city council with this to explain? How do you guys want to do this moving forward?

See, great. I don't I I know that was our tradition.

So does it have to be? I mean, I can't I most of the time, could probably make it, but I can't guarantee always. I don't know exactly that date. But but do you need me to be there or not? Does it help or not? Which I'm happy either way. With as much detail, you're okay?

Well, I I should say I think it might be helpful with this

Oh, with this option. Okay. That's great. November 24. Correct?

Yes. That's what we have right now. I'll tell you what, if you can have that on your calendar, and then I'll have it ten. I'll talk more with the staff and and the city manager and see how how they feel if it if that would be helpful.

But K.

Just let me know. Like there's enough, like, caveats that they're gonna ask. Well

What happened? Why is

it this way? Or or what were your what was the planning commission's thoughts? How did you arrive at this?

Okay. I'll just let me know. Send me an email or something, and I can be prepared to go if you need me to. So Okay. Awesome. Thanks. Okay. So communications from city staff.

Do you let's see. I don't know that I have anything. No. Last time oh, I've got it in here somewhere. I don't need it. Last time you asked me what was coming up, and so I made a point. I asked Lindsay to help me. Let's make a calendar of all the things that are coming up. Well, at this point, we don't have any items scheduled for the future. Okay.

That's easy. Yeah. So, I don't I don't know when our next meeting will be. I would like us to circle back with you on the clear and objective code update that Madeline was talking about. So we may it would be good if we're not if we don't meet in November or December, it would be really good for us to all come together at least in January, remember who each other are, say happy New Year, and maybe do a K.

A check-in on that project and kinda how how we can react to the, the public engagement piece of it because I think that was a good, suggestion. So Okay. Yeah. And then we're we have a interview scheduled for our planning manager position for this Friday. Okay. That's what

I was wondering. I know. Miss Aquila's kinda doing all things right now.

So Yeah. Yeah.

Okay. That's great. So potentially some maybe somebody new by January. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. And, also, we should have a new commissioner

by Oh, yes.

Commissioner by then as well because I think they're doing it like I said, I think they're doing interviews next week. So, hopefully Okay. They're got seven seven commissioners. Okay.

That's great. Okay. I will take a motion to adjourn.

So move.

K. Thank you. We are adjourned. Thank you, guys. Thanks, everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Goodness. Thank you, Vandice, for writing that up.

That explains my thinking.

I know you did a good job explaining

the objective standards that they're going through and looking at is not started yet.