Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Baby, baby. me.

Heat. Heat. Come on.

Hey. Hey. Hey. All right. I call the May 13th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting to order at 6 PM. Can I get a roll call? Chair Seanova here. Jeff Sundell

here. Andrew Carr here. Nicole Hendricks. Matt Constantine here. Rob Candrian here. Thank you. Great. Thank you. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you. And at this time, this this is the time that citizens have the opportunity to address the planning commission regarding any items that are not already scheduled for a formal public hearing. This includes the opportunity to address any item scheduled for a work session. Therefore, if any member of the audience, either here, city hall, or via Zoom, would like to speak about any other matter of concern, including any work session item, please raise your hand or send a message to the recorder using the Zoom CH chat function so that we may hear from you. Now, if you have not already, please fill out a testimony card and give it to the clerk. Also, please state your name and address for the record or state that your address is provided on the on the testimony card. Um, we have a lively audience. This is, I think, the first time I've seen this many people here, which is exciting. Uh, please do limit your comments to no more than three minutes. And I have some cards here.

Uh, Mr. George, Dunn,

you get six minutes for two. Um, hi there. My name is George. This is Winston. Uh, mom's been mandated, so he's come along for the journey. Um, I just want to take a moment to, uh, speak about the proposed removal of the town center height waiver. Um, as a millennial living here in town, um, I can tell you firsthand, um, how difficult it is for young residents to live here, um, to stay here. Uh, housing costs are pushing people my age and younger, um, out of the community they grew up in. Um, meanwhile, most of the conversations I hear around this waiver revolves around the fear of uh turning into Portland, of building heights. Um, fear of change, a fear of losing our culture, as if box stores and empty parking lots are where we derive our culture from instead of the people that reside here. Um, that fear I feel like distracts us from any of the real issues that are facing us as a community. that is our community is aging. Um our workforce is shrinking and the people we rely on to keep this community vibrant no longer can live here. Uh, for years I feel like many of us have kind of been proponents of treating our community like a gated community, which is fine, but I feel like that has to come with the realization that gated communities are expensive both financially and socially. Um, if we want Wiltonville to remain strong, we need housing for young workers, for young families, and even the aging parents they care for. Um me and my wife

currently have to drive more than an hour to help provide for the healthcare transportation for her parents. And I can't tell you how nice it would be to be able to have them reside here in town, but we can't afford that. Um anyways, that's why I'm asking you not to eliminate the height waiver. The waiver isn't a blank check. It is a pro it any project will still have to go through community review. Um and this is a 40-year plan. uh we're making decisions that will shape the options available to people who aren't even born yet. By the time this plan is done, he'll be a 40ome year old like man who's possibly spent a whole term on a planning commission. Um if the concern is the pacing or scale of this project, then I'd like to suggest something like a 10-year moratorum. Um that way people we can put a pause on it for 10 years and then allow the future generations to review it again their needs where they are. That way everyone one has time to breathe take time into it. Um but it doesn't remove a tool from future generations that might desperately need it. Um, so yeah, I'm asking you please don't take away um options from people who will inherit the city and please help plan for that welcomes its youth back instead of pushing them away. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Next we have Mr. Adam Cunningham. Good evening, Planning Commission. My name is Adam Cunningham. I come before you tonight as a citizen of Wilsonville, and my address is on file. I might be the only person crazy enough to have read and reviewed all 1,611 pages of the Town Center outreach. Phases 1, two, and three. I noticed this outreach was not included in your packet materials. It should have been. Everyone who purports to be a policy maker on Town Center should review these documents in detail as this is where the community's voice can be found, especially given how many times this award-winning outreach document claims to support the formation of a communitydriven plan. I have only three minutes to speak, so I've provided a written summary of my observations of that review of that review for the record. I have 36 pages of detailed notes. If anyone's interested in seeing them, you know how to find me. Long story short, in over 1,600 pages of documentation, I could only find six references to building heights above five stories. The first was from the very first task force meeting in March 2017 when an unidentified participant said, quote, "Development of taller buildings, even as tall as seven or 10 stories, was seen as most appropriate along the freeway corridor. How could they have known this before any community feedback had been received? Two references in phase three came from planning commission meetings in 2017 28. Actually, it would be 2018. Neither of these was born of any detectable community input. The other three came from surveys and a question of the month. These examples of actual community input indicated disfavor in by more than 50% in those surveys. The question of the month showed a clear preference for the other listed options

of and the option given was four to sixstory mixeduse buildings. And it wasn't even close how how far away this was. That's it. Any other time that a building up to six stories tall was presented to the citizens to gauge interest. Only disinterest was found. If our residents asked for six-story buildings, it was never documented in the city's award-winning outreach. By all appearances, most conversations in these documents centered on three to four stories, and respondents tended to shy away from highrises. If the award-winning outreach actually does what it purports to do by developing a plan based on a communitydriven vision, I think it would be fair for city staff to provide direct specific citations from the outreach to support any policy guidance on additional building height. The town uh 2025 town center survey is another incredibly important document in this discussion. If you have not reviewed the survey results, you're not operating with all of the information required to advance communitydriven policy. I find question six in that document especially useful. It asks, "What downtowns are residents would like to see Wilsonville emulate?" The top five answers accounting for more than half of all responses given Lake Asiggo, Westlin, Sherwood, Mcmminville, and Canby. Have you seen a six-story building in any of those towns, let alone their downtowns? If our citizens did in fact ask for six-story buildings, it should be easy to point to specific requests. So, please be curious about these issues and how we got here. Demand answers and accountability. Our citizens deserve it.

Thank you. Next, we have uh Mr. Brad Williams. Hi, Brad Williams. Uh, my address and contact information is on the card. Um, going to speak about something, but I'm going to change change it up given what George just said. I want to talk to you basically about my journey to home ownership in Wilsonville. I got a job here in Mentor Graphics in 1998, making $10 an hour. I lived in an apartment just across the street from the high school for two years. Then I moved and bought a one-bedroom condo in West Lynn. Two years I got I got married, moved to a two-bedroom condo in uh Beaverton, lived there for a few years, built up equity, moved to a four-bedroom brand new house in Hubard. I did that because I couldn't afford to live here in Wilsonville. I couldn't afford to buy a brand new house. The house in Hubard was like $75 to $100,000 less. It was more affordable. So, I had to make even though I didn't really want to live there. I didn't really want to live in West Lynn and I didn't really want to live in Beaverton. But that's what you do. You you move from one city to another, one house to another to build up equity unless you're just incredibly wealthy, which I am not. The affordability issue of Town Center, I don't think it's really addressed in the plan. When you look at the prices of VUA, which many people online mock, even VUA, which is supposed to be a a low income, an answer to low-income housing, is is unaffordable. There are apartments that were rented for in VUA which costs more money than my mortgage taxes and insurance

combined. So if if the the height is not going to make it more affordable, the number of units is not going to make it more affordable. People created suburbs because they wanted to get away from high density and overcrowding and the crime that comes with that. It It just baffles me that we are going to recreate those issues potentially here in Wilsonville. Yes, Wilsonville is not affordable for everybody, but we have a lot of great things here that are worth making the sacrifice to build equity elsewhere and come back and live here. The drawings that we have seen for the town center plan, all of those drawings were one for fourstory buildings. When you show somebody a picture of what you're going to build, they expect that's what you're going to build. I I don't understand why this project, given all the outreach and feedback, keeps getting bigger. It makes me wonder who is really driving the Town Center project. Is it developers and realators or is it its citizens? Thank you. Thank you. Uh, next we have Dina, Miss Dina Ox or AS Oaks.

Oaks. Okay, thanks. I married it.

Good evening. Uh, my name is Dena Oaks and my address is on the speaker card. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I grew up here. I raised my family here and this is my very first planning commission meeting. I never thought I'd come to one of these. Um, I naively assumed that input from the community was taken into account. I heard that a city official has said nobody showed up to the planning commission meeting. So, here I am. To be honest, I don't want to be here. I shouldn't have to be here. But not paying attention and not showing up seem to be common themes thrown out by officials. I really don't want to be here. I'm here because I expect those empowered to listen. In May of 2024, the urban renewal advisory vote for Town Center failed. While it was a vote on the financing option, it would be ridiculous not to take it as a red flag on how people feel about the current town center plan. I filled out all the surveys and I know we were never asked about building heights. The most recent survey by the city clearly showed that housing was at the bottom of priorities. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have housing. It just means it's not the top thing that people want. People stated they wanted something like Lake Oiggo, Westland, Cami, and other cities. None of those neighboring cities have five to sevenstory buildings. They have bustling, vibrant communities with ample parking. I recently had dinner in Lake Asiggo, and it's charming. They maintained the culture of the city while also adding a lifestyle that fit. The sevenstory buildings doesn't honor the community that lives in Wilsonville. Please take a minute and read the most recent survey results. That's what citizens want and it's your job to

listen to the people. It's not your job to push through an agenda. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Next, we have Kate Johnson. Dear chair and members of the planning commission, my name is on the record here. My name is Kate Johnson and I'm a member of the town center building height waiver task force. Um I'm here today to raise concerns that none of what I mentioned today was raised during the task force meetings. Um these are critical talking points that continue to be dismissed. The future of our town center is being decided right now and the community you serve must drive the decision, not follow it. These are permanent decisions that will reshape the character of Wilsonville for generations. The those most affected deserve more than courtesy consultations, especially when we're living in affordable housing crisis times. Where's the connection? The city is moving too rapidly towards granting developers broad flexibility to construct six and sevenstory apartment buildings in our town center. Backed by public funding is the single funding mechanism. These are not minor administrative adjustments. We are asking you to slow down and get it right. The town center building height waiver task force, the very body charged with guiding this process, has serious structural problems that undermine its legitimacy. Let me begin by saying that the task force's makeup does not represent our community. Two members are not Wilsonville residents. Town center business owners were largely absent from the t table. Why? Community outreach conducted last fall produced clear feedback that was not included. Why? That feedback does not appear to be driving the task force's work. It's not transparent. Key materials and links have been difficult to access or appear to

downplay what residents actually said. The outcome is predetermined. Every option presented to the task force assumes height waivers will continue. Eliminating them was never offered as a choice. Why? The questions being asked don't reflect the community concerns. Small group discussions have steered away from the issues residents care most about. I even had one development review board member from my small group discussions deliberate literally, "Well, we have to consider what would appeal to the developers." Unquote. Most tellingly, at the very first task force meeting, the city's planning director framed the town center plan as an urbanization of Wilsonville, but never defined the term. What does the urbanization of Wilsonville actually mean with respect to waivers? That framing alone should give every Wilsonville citizens pause and every commissioner reason to ask hard questions. We are not asking you to stop development. We are asking you to demand a process that is fair, transparent, and genuinely accountable to Wilsonville citizens. Require that the task force reflects our our full community. Require that citizen feedback be meaningfully incorporated. Require that all options, including the elimination of height waivers, be placed on the table. The window to act is now. We urge that you we urge you to use your authority to ensure Wilsonville's future is shaped by its residents, not decided by for them. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next we have Doris Wheeler. Hi, my name is Dora Swaylor. No, I don't want to sit. Thanks. Thanks, Miranda. So, good evening. Um, my information is on file. I've lived here forever, at least 60 years. So, I've been to hundreds of city meetings, including planning commission meetings, especially the early ones. So, in 2018-19, I served on the original town center task force. The recommendation was for buildings as high as four stories. Somewhere between then and now, four stories has morphed into five stories. Proof of that is the five-story apartment building that will be built on the Sherry's side. Now you are considering seven stories. Key takeaways from the town center public engagement update included this quote. In reviewing images about potential town center development, some participants provided critical feedback about the height and design of the buildings, finding them too tall, too modern, and too much like a big city. Also, participants were concerned about the amount of housing, traffic, and loss of our small town feel, as well as concerned that crime is greater in high density developments. Let's examine what five-story buildings

versus sevenstory buildings would look like in town center. Vuea is a five-story building with four stories of apartments. That's 30 apartments per floor. The council's current projection is 2400 living units in town center. Let's imagine that visual now. 25tory apartment buildings. Yes, 20. Now, if you allow waiverss for two more stories, that could accommodate 3600 living units. And if you kept That's if you kept to 20 buildings. If you allowed a waiver for each living floor, then in 20 buildings, you could increase the density to 4,800 living units. Of course, if you allowed a waiver for each floor and simply increase the number of units per floor, you could even cram in more. This is not what c Wilsonville citizens want to see. If the town center plan is to have any hope of receiving approval from the public, you will not give waiverss for additional floors. Also, you might keep in mind that housing was the least desired attribute in the town center plan. Our community wants a redo of town center. They really do, and they want one they can support. Adding height waivers is like putting a nail in the coffin. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Ned Walls.

Hi, my name is Ned Walls and my contact info is on the card. I concur with everything Adam said and I have a few things to say myself. Um, I've lived in Wilsonville for over 29 years. I've coached youth football and high school football in this community for 27 years. I've spent decades getting to know Wilsonville families and residents. One thing I keep coming back to is a question, where is the evidence that residents want buildings as tall as five stories or more throughout Town Center. The city's own outreach findings show that residents value Wilsonville's small town feel, safety, natural settings, sense of community. Residents also expressed concerns about increased density and buildings that feel too much like a big city. I have talked with many people over the years. I have yet to hear anyone ask for the kind of dramatic change to Wilsville's character. Yet, the options being discussed seem to assume that height waiverss will continue instead of asking whether residents want them at all. More importantly, the work of the task force does not seem to be aligned with the feedback gathered during last fall's community outreach. Residents raise concerns, but the small group discussions appear focused on questions that do not fully reflect those concerns. The concern is not simply whether one project receives a waiver. The concern is that repeated waiverss gradually shift expectations and weaken original height limits over time. At some point, what was intended as an exception starts becoming the standard. In my professional life, I have worked in law enforcement for over 27 years in Multma County. I've seen what adding light rail and apartment buildings does to a community. Just go to Rockwood. For the last nine years with many I've worked with many jurisdictions along the I-5 corridor. I have seen firsthand what happens when communities increase density dramatically without fully understanding the long-term impacts. Taller buildings mean more units, more traffic, more demand on our infrastructure, and changes cannot easily be reversed once

they happen. Before we make changes that can permanently reshape Wilsonville, we should slow down and make sure we truly understand both the impact and the community's wishes. Do we even know whether there is enough demand to fill that many additional units? Have residents clearly said this is the direction they want for Wilsonville? I'm not saying Wilsonville should never grow. Growth is inevitable, but growth should reflect the vision of the people who live here, not assumptions made without clear public support. I respectfully ask the planning commission to gather more data, ensure the process is fully transparent, and most importantly direct directly ask residents, "Is this truly what you want for Wilsonville?" Thank you. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

All right. Next, we have Elizabeth Peters. Hi, Elizabeth Peters. My address is on the speaker card. I currently serve on the town center building height waiver task force and it's an honor to be on that in that group. Last fall, the city asked residents what they wanted in a town center. The process included focus groups and a survey completed by 555 people, which is really good for Wilsonville. The outreach was conducted by professional consultants hired by the city. The feedback was clear. Residents support local restaurants, retail, parks, and gathering spaces. Most of all, as you've heard others say here, they value Wilsonville's small ca small town character. The survey also showed clear concerns about density. Increased density ranked as the top concern. Housing variety and affordable housing ranked near the bottom as reasons to support the plan. I also revered we've re reviewed some of the earlier town center outreach processes and I could find I couldn't find any evidence that residents were ever directly asked whether developers should be allowed to exceed the original building height limits in the development code. That is concerning. The city asked residents what they wanted. residents answered clearly they want a town center that f fits Wilsonville's character. They do not want substantially taller buildings and increased density. Voters also rejected the town center plan in 2024 and that outcome should matter. If the city moves forward without reflecting community priorities, we risk

another rejection in the future. For these reasons, I do not support continued building height waivers for developers. Height waivers should be removed from the town center development code. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. Next, we have Justin Diaz. Good evening. Thank you for allowing me to speak. My name is Justin Diaz. My address is on file and I've lived in Wilsonville since 2018, my wife since 2013. I would like to start by thanking Councilman Cunningham for his testimony earlier and state that I agree with him wholeheartedly. I would also like to thank those that have spoken before me about their concerns as I share them. Additionally, I would like to state some concerns that I have been shared with me by my immediate neighbors, members of my community, and a few local businesses that I patron as my wife and I shared their concerns as well. We are not against urban renewal. It is accepted and understood to be a valuable, if not necessary, tool. However, we are not in favor of highdensity apartments or affordable housing. Whether it's below five stories or above, we, myself included, are in favor of a community rec center, a community pool, new businesses that include retail stores and restaurants, and again, not highdensity apartments with all the problems, potential problems that they may bring, i.e. Portland. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Rick Peters. Good evening. My name is Rick Peters. My address is on the speaker card and I must say I certainly agree with Councelor Cunningham and the others that have spoken before me. You know, I keep hearing about incentives and flexibility for developers. Developers should not drive your decisions. The priority voice in your decisions and recommendations must be the people who live here. Wilsonville is a suburb. Why is the city trying to urbanize it? The community has clearly said that they like it here because of its small town feel. Tall buildings don't align with what the community wants. I think these building height waiverss should be eliminated. By the way, this is exactly why my wife and I are voting yes on measure 3-632 because the future Wilsonville belongs in the hands of its residents. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Christy Corno for Ko. Good evening. My name is Christy Corno and my address is on the card. Um, and what I want to tell you guys tonight is um, kind of tell you my a little bit of my experience and an opinion I have. Um, I bought purchased my first home or townhouse uh, in Wilsonville and it was six years ago. So, I live in a three-story townhouse and what I love the most about it is my front porch that I sit on. I talk about my Ask my friends or family. I've talked about my I talk about my front porch all the time and I have a little back deck to sit on as well. So, I have to tell you my opinion of that new building, Voya I think it's called. I can't stand it. The design, I don't like it. Um because it looks um it's too tall by the it's five stories and when I drive past it I think where do they sit? Where do they sit outside? Um mental illness is a big priority for our county. Um and it's always been something that's I find um I take seriously and it's really important. And I think being outside and being able to sit outside on your own property um is important. And I just feel bad for those for the people living there and that they can't do that. They don't have a deck. I just feel like they look to me trapped inside that building. And I don't know if planning has much say in building design, but if I picture a lot of those buildings in Town Center, it would just kind of make me sad. I was there a few weeks ago cuz I volunteer in

the food bank that moved to the ground level of that building. And I met one of the gals that recently moved in and she came and she asked me, um, hey, is the city gonna is the city gonna make a park, like a little park near here? And I was like, I don't know. I don't think so. And then she pointed to the wildlife area that's across that uh, I forget what street that is. Um, I said, no, it's not owned by the city that's owned by Metro. It's it's for wildlife. I don't I don't think that's going to be a park. And I may be biased and reading into it, but it it I just wanted her a place to sit outside. That's what I wanted for her. And so I just I just can't stand that look and um that trajectory of this of the city headed that way. Now now we'll have Sher's that building. So now I'm like now we have two buildings that are five stories with no decks. That's enough for me. I'm I'm in the I'm in the two two to four story. That's where I live. And I get I understand that this isn't my town. It is our town. But I do want you guys to be mindful of the people of the people that are going to live in this town and live in these buildings and what their life quality will be. Thank you. Thank you, John Lllo. Oh my goodness.

Hello, John Ledllo. Um, I think you have all my contact information. I've lived here Doris's long. I've been here for 50 years, though. And one of the things that happened um was first of all when Wilsonville was formed a group outside the city we called them the Lavender Hill mob uh to the west specifically you know Ed Edmonson road ladill area they did not want this place to urbanize they did not want Wilsonville become a city and they fought it. I became real involved in the early 70s with the original planning commission and what came before them was the outrageousness of a proposing four-story buildings. Two of them they still exist. It's the AGC center and Holiday Inn and it was very controversial. The planning commission really got beat up by the same Lavender Hill mob people and others who didn't want growth. They fought Tektronics when it came in because they said this will be the beginning of the end. that tech came and then then people wanted to build four-story buildings. There wasn't much up there at that time. So, they got built but kind people kind of swore at that time there will never be anything higher than four stories here and there should not be. They claimed and remember these were for commercial use never consideration about elevators and and uh balcon no balconies your place you reside. This this was different. This is commercial. So beyond that planning commission coming up with the idea that we didn't want to look like Beaverton and gosh really because we do look like Beaverton. They they said four stories was enough and it always has been until this new wave came up. I guess it's a Portland Metropolitan Association of Realtors pushing um to have more urbanization. They call it undefined

just urbanization which means to them and metro density. We are already exceeding the 50% line between residences and departments. Well exceeded that. We've done enough for metro and and all the people who want to stack and pack. But uh four stories should be the limit. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Dwight Sims.

Good evening. Thanks for the opportunity to weigh in. My name is Dwight Sims. My address is on file. It's also on the card. I agree with pretty much everything I've heard. Um, but I have some specific concerns. I have some concerns about today's summary that I read before coming to this meeting, especially about the specific wording in the report. I think we all know that word choice can make a big difference in our perceptions and our feelings. As in the old joke, horses sweat, men persspire, but women glow. We're explaining things. Let's see how that works out in today's report, which has 515 pages, eight of which are devoted to the building heights waiver issue. I'll be quoting excerpts from page 452 if you'd like to follow along. Here's the first example quote. At its second meeting on April 21, 2026, the task force reviewed drafts of different options for revising the waiver provision. Note the language. options for revising the waiver provision, not options like should there be any waivers at all or are building heights of four to five stories compatible as others have said with Wilsonville's small town character. The effect of this word choice is to rule out right at the start the broader question of what kind of buildings Town Center should have in the first place. If quote revisions to building height waiverss is the starting point, the only way to go is up literally. To be fair, today's report does contain the following. Quote, the group also discussed an option five of not allowing any building height waiver, but the challenge of having one building Sherry's already approved for the additional story makes it difficult to have that building as a quote unicorn in

town center. So to avoid the quote challenge is the only option to build all of them five stories tall or even taller. If that's the case I would like to point out as others have that Vuea has already been built to five stories and it's not even in town center is the ultimate plan to eventually put fivetory buildings all over Wilsonville. Although I've been reading the spokesman and the Winsferry Messenger faithfully since 2015 when my wife and I moved here and attending Wilsonville City Council meetings now regularly for many years. I don't believe I've seen any outreach to the public over this question. Adam also mentioned that and others. Is it possible that the voters's rejection of urban renewal funding for the 2019 version of the plan was at least in part a reaction to the idea of having 4,000 plus housing units in town center with buildings just four stories tall. It seems unlikely that adding more stories will increase voter support for any revised plan. I hope to hear soon from the city that the idea of taller buildings anywhere anywhere in Wilsonville will not be on the table for consideration. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Valerie Busher Busher Bush.

Good evening. My name is Valerie Boucher and as I've said at town meetings, I married my wonderful husband for that lovely last name. Why do you live in Wilsonville? Why do you live in Wilsonville? When my husband retired, it offered us the opportunity to return to Oregon, a place where we had lived twice before. We began our search in Portland, rejected Portland, and continued to move further away from the metropolitan area. Eventually, we found Wilsonville. When we left Wilsonville in the early 90s, it was just a little spot on the map, a gas station, and maybe a store, maybe a house or two. We found Wilsonville in 2020 to be a lovely town, small town, plankked right in the middle of a serene, bucallic countryside. We fell in love with Wilsonville. And I have to say, Wilsonville has some of the most wonderful people and the friendliest place we've ever lived. And by the way, um, Brad, we built equity, too, but not in the local area. We did it east coast, west coast, east coast, west coast, east coast, west coast, and now we ain't moving again. I hope. Anyway, when I talk with my neighbors and and talk about this beautiful town, they all say the same thing. beautiful small suburbia.

I became aware not too long ago that the town center had a plan of putting 1,600 living units above retail in the downtown area. And then that was resurfaced again the plan but it numbers had re morphed into over 4,000. I thought wow what's happened? Was there an orgy that these numbers magically multiplied? You know it's kind of like dust in your house. You clean it one day next day it breeds overnight and the next day it's there again. In addition to these 4,000 plus units, we then learned that there could be waiverss to the height. I've heard tonight six, seven stories. In my mind's eye, I am picturing a citadel in the middle of our town center. The only thing that would be missing is a moat. If people want urban living, there's Eugene 100 miles south or even closer, 20 miles, Portland. In closing, thank you for letting me speak. Let Portland be Portland and Wilsonville be Wilsonville. Thank you. Thank you,

Eric Winters. He He had a family emergency and he'll be back. Okay. Thank you. I hope I see this right. Kristen Rocher. You're making it fancier than it is. Okay. It's actually just Roach. Roach.

I tried to get my husband to change. Um, I didn't prepare anything formal. My name's Kristen Roach. I'm on the My contact info is on the card. I was pulling out of the driveway tonight and um, I had a neighbor ask, "Where are you headed? Getting dinner?" And I said, "No, I'm going to the planning commission meeting to talk about five to seven story multi-units for town center." And the reaction was like, "What?" And so I would ask each of you, I know a lot of no signs for 362 are in most of your yards, but I would ask most of you, I know Rob, you live in Canyon Creek, Andrew, Carriage Oaks, and the rest of you, Villa Bois. Have you spoken to your immediate neighbors and ask them, "What do you think about five to seven stories?" Because I know what my neighbors in Wilsonville Meadows would say. they'd be appalled. Um, and that's why I'm here tonight. I'm speaking for I'm the HOA president of Wilsonville Meadows, which is 300 homes there. So, I'm speaking on behalf of the majority of our neighborhood, um, which is about a third retired um, original homeowners from 1990. A couple years ago, uh, I think it was Adam Cunningham who uncovered the feasibility study. And what was disappointing about that was that it was not listed on the city of Wilsonville website with all the other dozens of PDFs. Um, talking about the award-winning uh uh community outreach, um, it was hidden. Why wouldn't you list the document that's most important to funding what you want to do in Town Center on the Town Center city website with all the other PDFs? So, that was a red flag to me. It's still not listed there, by the way. Google it while you're waiting. So, I asked four questions of Kim to find out. I said the

first thing was um were residents ever asked density levels? Um were they allowed to rank amenities? Uh was it what was the reaction to a new urbanism model? And uh the fourth was what other surveys were there besides a streetscape one which had 68 responses. I got an invoice back for $2,38 to answer those basic questions. I'm not kidding. I will forward it to you. Fast forward to April of 2026 and I was observer of the task force. You would think with the uh the advisory vote failing. Uh it would be a 50/50. You'd have 50% crit people critical of the town center plan and and 50 half of them were supportive. No, the deck was stacked like it has been. Um, eight people that were let's go seven stories and then two Liz and uh and uh Kate and I heard as an observer to both the April 15th and the April uh 23rd. I heard no discussions about the focus groups and I was one of the participants of the focus group last fall. No one talked about what the residents had indicated in the focus groups or on the surveys. And in those focus groups, not one person talked about more than four stories. Last thing I want to close with, there was more, but the the renderings that were shown to the public on Town Center, if you look back at all of the renderings, not a single building in the renderings that were supplied by city planners showed more than four stories. That's not right. That's not right. And we're having a discussion here tonight about 5 to 7. I think there needs to be more transparency and honesty with our public. That's been missing for a long while. I have other things to say, but I'm hoping for an option five because option one, two, and three, and four

don't cut it for the majority of the public. Thank you. Thank you. All right, Bob Milano. Good evening. My name is Bob Milano and I live in Villa. My wife and I have been there since 2016. Villa, as you may or may not know, is one of Wilsonville's earlier urban renewal districts. It was developed almost 20 years ago on approximately 430 acres and is approaching 2700 units. The community includes single family homes, town homes, condominiums, apartment buildings, parks, and recreational areas. It also includes approximately 18 homeowner associations and I proudly serve as president of one of them. In my view, the single greatest challenge throughout will Villa right now is inadequate parking. My HOA includes 169 single family residences, yet only five have a driveway. Most homes were marketed as having twocar garages, but in practice, those garages are too small to accommodate comfortably two modern vehicles. At the same time, most working families require more than one vehicle vehicle for commuting and daily life. Our CCNRs

require that at least one vehicle be parked inside the garage and I believe other HOA the other HOAs in Villa have similar rules. The result is that available street parking is already severely limited. And now we are adding three brand new fourstory apartment complexes that will house approximately 143 new homeowners. Now take that back. Tenants. Those units were planned at the pace of having one parking spot for every two units. So obviously we've got at least 70 or more homeowner or tenants that won't have a place to park and that's just going to burden our streets even more. And we also know that most of those 143 units are not going to have just a single occupant. They'll be dual occupancy in most of them. Since the physical layout of Villa is already well established, we're our situation is unlikely to improve. It's going to stay the best same or get worse. I read the town center feasibility and deter I or learned that approximately the same number of housing units are going on to a footprint that is one quarter of the size of Villa. How can that possibly make sense? I understand our hope for the future is that people will start working remotely.

We'll be riding bicycles. We'll be walking using public transportation. But I don't think that's the reality. And I would respectfully encourage the planning commission to carefully reconsider the density and the number of housing units that are uh not really taking into consideration the infrastructure and traffic patterns that we're dealing with in today's economy. Thank you very much. Thank you. Has Eric Winters returned or No, not yet. Okay,

hold on. Do we have anybody anybody on Zoom?

If you are on Zoom and would like to speak, please raise your hand now. I do not have any hands raised. Okay, thank you. That concludes all of our public comment cards. I appreciate everybody stepping up and coming today, even if you didn't want to. Thank you. All right. The next item on the agenda that we have is the administrative matters is the consideration um of the March 30th and April 8th to uh 2026 planning commission meeting minutes. Uh, are there any corrections that anybody sees needed to those meeting minutes?

No. Okay.

All right. No corrections. The meeting the minutes are approved as distributed. And next we'll move into our public hearing. I call to order the public hearing regarding resolution number LP26-00002. It's the resolution uh of the city of planning commission recommending city council adoption of the housing statutory compliance project part one development code amendments at 6 to 54 p.m. Have all the commissioners familiarized themselves with the application?

Yes. Yes. Great. At this time, I call for city staff to present the staff report, including staff's proposed recommendations along with the applicable review and approval criteria. Will the city staff please present their report and recommendation?

Yes, thank you. Good evening. My name is Kim Ryold, senior planner with the city of Wilsonville, and I have with me tonight Heather Austin of 3J Consulting. uh and we are going to present to you all uh the proposed development code amendments related to the first part of the housing statutory compliance project. I would note that in your packet tonight, you have an overview of uh what what the different subject matter is uh related to the project. uh as well as an attachment um that is substantially the same as what we presented to you at the last work session with the addition of a table up front uh that serves as an index to the different amendments and identifies uh which ones are required by which statute and which ones are more result of the housing production strategy. Uh so with that we just want to walk you through uh what the proposed amendments are, why we are doing them, and uh have an opportunity for questions or comments. So with that, I will turn it over to Heather.

Thank you, Kim. Good evening, members of the commission. Um tonight we just have um the public hearing piece. We've been before you for work session as well as your city council and your development review boards. Um, so we've been able to take the input we've received from those work sessions and compile all of that for this evening's hearing. Tonight, we'd like to ask you to consider the development code amendments that are before you in your packet um to accept any public testimony on the matter and make a recommendation to your city council who' make the final decision on this topic. Next slide, please. So, I'm going to sort of remind us where we've been just for the record to make sure that um it's clear that we are working on generally a statutory compliance code update package. Um there's a few other pieces, but there is real alignment with the city's um housing production strategy, action C in particular, which is in yellow on your screen. um administrative review and that doesn't tell us a whole lot, but it means reviewing your your review processes for how you review residential applications to make sure there's not barriers to having housing production happen. So, that lined up really well with the state mandates that are coming through from the housing legislation. So, those two pieces of legislation that we're speaking about this evening, Senate Bill 974 and House Bill 4037, um have been uh implemented. They they were passed over the last year. Senate Bill 974 in 2025, 437 in 2026. Both are required to be put into place by all cities in Oregon um July 1st of 2026. So if the city hasn't updated their development codes um in time for that, they apply state law directly. So um those are your options with most of the material we're here um reviewing this evening. Um but really the code updates do try to balance the statutory

requirements with the customer service uh friendly um process that Wilsonville has had um to date. I know with two development review boards and with um easy access to staff. It has been um a very you know housing development um you know friendly city. So that will continue. Um as well as public access to the process. Um that is a piece we'll we'll talk about as well. Making sure that the city is as transparent as possible. One of the things that we've talked about is how we get the word out about what's happening in Wilsonville. If we are talking about limiting um public uh notice of things. So increasing social media presence, um the website, other ways that people get information, making sure that the city's making an effort in that manner as well. Next slide, please. Um so just a reminder of our project schedule. Again, this is phase one of our overall two-phase project. We do have a second set of um of regulatory requirements that are going to be due by the end of this year. But for the first half of 2026, um we're right on track with a public hearing here at the planning commission in May. City council public hearing in June and again July 1 is when we take effect. So um ideally our code amendments will be um adopted. We're at hearing June 1. Um if there is some small gap then we would apply state law directly during that time. Next slide please. Um so as a reminder the current land use review process is um for um housing review is broken into three classes. There's a fourth class for legislative amendments but we're not talking about those this evening. So the first class is an administrative review where your planning team under your planning director making a decision. There's no public notice with those. So those are like um reviewing building permits, um some small sign

applications, those types of things. Um class two administrative review is also um a decision by your planning director, but there is public notice and those can be called up to your development review board currently. Um and then class three is your development review board's making a decision, but you um uh planning commissioners, I believe city council can call those up. um they get those uh agendas as well so they can see the issues that are being reviewed. Um so that is um I wanted to make sure that we are clear on what today's processes because now we'll talk about what the changes are that we are proposing with the code amendments. Next slide please. So, Senate Bill 974 said that there are certain reviews that need to be class two. And if you'll recall, that's staff level with a public notice. Um, so they this uh amendment would be for zoning map amendments that increase residential density, stage one and stage two plan development review, and variances in waiverss that are specific to residential development standards. Um they also said in this standard that class 2 administrative review um notice period should be 14 days. That's an increase from the current 10 days that Wilsonville has. So that change actually is kind of in the opposite direction of of where um that's going that that people have more time um before a decision is rendered to have notice of these review applications. So 974 again was um passed in 2025 and then in 2026, next slide please. House Bill 4037 was passed and and it's really um meant to go in concert with a 974. Um it does take it a step further by saying all residential development applications are type two now. So, um, it, you know, where they were being specific about

those certain types like a a zone change or a plan development, now the House Bill 437 says, actually, let's just do all residential development applications. Um, and Kim will talk about how that impacts definitions and what residential development means, but we um did feel like it was important to make sure we were being clear with what that meant um for the city. One other uh change is that mailed notice radius is now 100 feet. I know at our first work session with you all we were talking about preferred radius and 100 feet was not what the body preferred but this passed after that first work session. So that is where we are. Um and then finally appeal rights and waiverss. So, uh, 4037 says that on a residential, um, development application, only the applicant is eligible to appeal that decision. Um, so in order to make that clear in Wilsonville's code, we do um have a new code section proposed 4.119 for waiverss and then updated that appeals section 4.022 to reflect those changes. Um, with that I will hand it over to um, Kim to talk a little more about things that are not specific to the statutory requirements. So again, that table in the front of your packet, anything that's labeled for um, code cleanup or um, efficiency or other um, reasons, Kim will talk about those pieces.

Great. Thank you. I I do want to mention too um that uh, the appeal rights it is specific to clear and objective standards. So hence the reason for breaking out the waiver process. Uh so as you go into your next work session item uh keep that in mind. You know the waiver is really asking for something that is outside of what is defined as a clear and objective standard in the code. And so uh that is where we will see a difference in what can and cannot be appealed. Um, I would also note too, uh, uh, just, uh, for your information and for the information of anybody in the audience, uh, we've had some discussion about that mailed radius notice. Uh, the city does do other methods of notification. Uh, they're not necessarily specifically statutoily required or put in our development code, which is why they're not a part of this package. Uh but right now on Let's Talk Wilsonville, we do have a very short one question survey up to try to get a sense of where people go to to find out information uh so that we can figure out in addition to the tools we currently use now um which ones we might want to consider focusing our efforts on in the future just to keep the community aware. Um so with that uh guided by uh the housing production strategy action C uh and and sort of that project principle of wanting to keep a customer service friendly process that was clear and easily administered. Uh given that we typically do package most of our residential development applications together into one piece. uh we looked at other elements that were not affected by uh the statutory requirements. Uh so key uh one key element is the annexation application. So this is bringing in land that is within the city's UGB but is not currently within the city boundary. Uh

to help uh keep everything tracking together knowing that there would no longer be a DRB hearing for the rest of the lane use applications. Uh the proposed development code amendments would take um the example of the Coffee Creek Industrial Design Overlay District which allows for an annexation hearing directly to council uh prior to or you know alongside the other applications. Uh we would use the same process for annexation requirement or requests here uh to help move keep things moving along and tracking smoothly. Uh and um you know really just be able to uh process everything in a consistent manner. Uh and that was based on feedback that we got from you all and from the city council uh on that process. Uh next, the development code amendments uh look at other modifications that the class 2 process allows for existing site plans that have been approved and existing development. Uh right now the square footage threshold for modifications that can be approved in the class 2 process is pretty narrow. It's 1,250 square feet. Uh and so uh the proposed development code amendments based on the feedback we got from the planning commission and city council will increase up to 10,000 square feet for existing buildings uh andor buildings that have been approved uh via the applicable development review process. Uh but this does maintain the 25% limitation of building or site area. So uh the actual threshold will vary depending on the size of the current development. Uh other updates that are included in this code package include uh a couple of new definitions to um to kind of for

ease of reference throughout the code be able to specify what residential development is and therefore what qualifies under this process as well as uh making some changes to where the DRB is referred to throughout the code. and instead use the term review authority uh to distinguish between residential and non-residential development and who the decision maker is. Uh we've made some edits to the site design review section of the code to uh pretty much apply existing practice which is you know we have to be using clear and objective standards to evaluate residential development. There's some very subjective language in that section. Uh so we've made amendments that tie back to the clar and objective standards that relate to those topic areas. And so that is pretty much a confirmation of our current process um put into code. Uh lastly, we've done some cleanup with the codes review timelines and processes. Uh this includes uh adding an expiration date to our pre-application meetings. uh it does become challenging when there is a lag between that pre-lication and when an application comes in and knowing that the code does change every so often. We want to be able to provide good service and current information. Uh we've review removed conflicting language about timelines throughout the code. There were several places where uh review timelines weren't consistent with the state uh statute of 120 days and so uh we removed anywhere there were conflicts and then refined other application review procedures just to reflect current process uh and practice with doing things like on online permit review and whatnot. Um, and the last piece, uh, that I want to bring back to you all, um, this is not in the code package in front of you tonight because it's actually amendments to areas outside of the development

code, but, uh, we wanted to report back since you provided us input here. Uh, one of the things that we will be doing with this project is, uh, moving forward, uh, with a development review board that is a single panel of seven members. This is in recognition of the fact that the amount the types of eligible applications for DRB review uh will shrink and so we do anticipate that will impact on the volume have an impact on the volume of eligible applications to go to the DRB. Um that being said there was some feedback throughout the process that we wanted to maintain responsiveness and flexibility. So, uh, we're moving to this model, uh, planning on one meeting a month with the option to add meetings as needed to be able to respond to statutory timelines. Uh I would note that this update will not take place until January 2027. Uh so that the current development review board structure that the city has uh can continue to be used for the rest of the year and that uh members do not end up in a state of flux in the middle of a year and ended in the middle of a term. Uh and based on the feedback we got with the development review board members uh as we had meetings with them um you know they felt like being on the development review board was a positive way to give you know give back to the community and given the number of canceled meetings that we've experienced over the past couple years. You know they were finding that they you know kind of took away from their feelings of preparedness and contributing. And so we are hopeful that with a single panel um potentially meeting more consistently that we will address that issue. Uh and so in terms of public comment on this hearing item, we have not received anything in writing uh to date.

Uh so with that uh the staff recommendation is that the planning commission approve resolution number LP26-00002 uh with a recommendation of adoption of the development code amendments to city council. Can I answer any questions you have? Thank you. Thank you. The commission have any questions? I have one question. So you said that if like we don't get this done then the state sets the rules like how much do the state's rules differ from what is proposed here? Are uh recommended proposed changes comply fully with the state statute?

But I mean like are ours more restrictive? Are they more permissive? Like cuz I feel like the state like if they say you have to have like X and we're like cool we'll have X and Y and they're like well we're fine with that but if we just like that's I just kind of wondering like what the difference is between what the state would make us have versus what we get to voluntarily create.

Yeah. Yeah. And that table um in the front of your packet um anywhere where it says um HB437 or SB974, those are straight state statute requirements. And then the other pieces are um not necessarily straight out of the state statute. So for example, um the um threshold for your modifications being changed is not related to the statutory. It's related to um being able to have more flexibility in design review for non-residential um in addition to right now. And then the annexations um annexations are more related to your HPS um action item C to make sure that we're doing that in a a thoughtful manner, sending those to city council like your Coffee Creek. Um those are that annexation is not being um spoken about in any of the statutory requirements. So it Yeah. Yeah. And I would say uh you know these are changes that uh we are allowed to make currently in state statute. Uh the difference being historically Wilsonville's development process has relied on a model of holding public hearings for new development

and has been pretty you know limited as to what can be approved administratively. Uh so the changes are required because that model will no longer work with what the statutory requirements are. So we tried to do so that those the optional changes are, you know, changes that we're making to kind of help everything run more smoothly. Go ahead.

N I one of the things that came up for me when I when I was reviewing this again kind of with fresh eyes or maybe with a little bit more context than last time um was the implications of of clear and objective standards. And um it by by putting the onus on clear and objective standards, it means that our code has to anticipate all the things that we might want to be

like that we might want a developer to consider. So if if there's a shift in attitudes in the city about street parking or about bicycle use or things like that um that would factor into these plans, we would have to go and update the city code for those specific portions of the code to anticipate those parameters. Right.

Correct. So that would um the the thought process kind of on a large level being that the that public debate and conversation to happen when you're setting the standards. Um so but that by the time you're actually implementing the standards um it's being done so in a way that isn't costing um you know creating unreasonable delay or burden. uh you know particularly there's the sensitivity of with that around the development of housing and the amount of time it takes to develop housing. Uh so I think that's where we've seen a lot of these statutory requirements coming from is from a place of trying to um make that process more predictable and more timely.

Thank you. So the the follow-up question that then is how do we how do we write our city code in a way that allows for a certain amount of variety and like uh maybe still encourages high quality architectural kind of design without kind of boxing developers into a really narrow definition of what's an acceptable outcome. Is is that a risk that we're posing or that we're facing with this requirement? So that's a great question um because a lot of the direction a lot so a lot of particularly residential codes that have been uh adopted over the past several years so I'll use frog pond as an example um there's been a lot of thought given to what those parameters should be either guided by the master planning processes that you know led to that development code um but also there's been um a lot of conversation at the state level again about uh you know what types of things are design standards that are clear and objective. And so there's been a lot of um a lot of work particularly with the middle housing code updates that happened back in 2021 uh around uh model codes and while the city did not directly adopt the state's model code um there were a lot of um I think a lot of cues taken in terms of design that came from that. Um that is another area of sensitivity that I think has come up at the state level in terms of um if you start overregulating that that could be perceived as adding an unreasonable cost to development which then again could put the city at risk. So it's kind of like a a balance there. Um but that is one of the reasons why the city historically has had a waiver process is to allow for um conversations around you know what to do outside of those parameters when there are um unique situations that come up or different

design ideas that might not fit neatly into that box. Um and so the city has used that waiver process um historically throughout the years uh in a number of ways and not necessarily being seen as something that you know gets you out of a standard but seen as something that can um implement the intent of a standard in a different way. Uh that's I think one of the key reasons why um because we felt the need to really have that extra clarity in the code that we've actually pulled those waiver standards into a standalone section. um to make it clear that for the state's purposes of applying clear and objective standards, there's also an option to do a waiver path and that's okay and we can have that. Um but to make that distinction more clearly,

excellent. Thank you, Commissioner Car. Yeah, I just wanted to um commend staff and consultants for all the work that went into this um especially with a compressed time frame. Uh I don't know that we normally move this fast. Um but you know when the state says jump we have to say how high. So uh but thank you. Thank you.

I have a quick question on the you know the radius was reduced. Is there a different way outside of that that people can get like subscribed push notifications of these kinds of things? like if the city publishes something, you get a push notification that it was published related to something like this instead of the the radius constraints that people can opt into if they want that.

One of the options currently available on the city website is um subscribing it's an email subscription to public hearing notices. Uh so I think one of the that is one of the features that we've asked about in the survey we have. Um I think in terms of you know what other things technology might allow us to do. Um you know I if you have other ideas I would recommend like please go take the survey. There is an option for other and so if there are outside of the box ideas that we might not be thinking of. I mean I think we're happy to research those too but um so right now yeah you can sign up for those email alerts. uh we'll have to I think probably expand because this won't be a hearing notice per se but it's a development notice so maybe there's a different option we want to add uh for people to be notified about um you know any development

happening so whatever's going on in the city like somebody wants to know yeah you we have to be careful over notification they would opt in but they would opt they would they would opt in yes and they would get a lot of notices Yeah. Great. Thank you so much. You're welcome. All right. Any other questions?

One one more. This is another one that came to me as I was re reviewing the the information for the second time, but um I wasn't very familiar with how annexations work or what they are or the implications of annexation. So I maybe I may I may need some more clarification on what uh what what does it mean for us to annex for residential purposes? I know that you the the reference in the in the packet and in this presentation you mentioned this as well. We're kind of modeling this off of the industrial um annexation process. Are residential annexations different? Are there different things that we tend to do in residential annexations?

No. I mean, you're making findings to what the area has been planned for. So, typically, if an area is eligible to be annexed to the city, there's mo most likely some kind of planning process that predated that. Uh, the reference to Coffee Creek is because um it's the only other place in the city that we currently allow for the annexation to go straight to city council. uh that was driven by a very similar situation when that code in Coffee Creek was adopted that allowed for administrative review. It was part of the conversation of well it doesn't do you much good to have the administrative review for everything else but then have to go through this two-step hearing process. And so um you know that's the only reason why that's the reference point. Uh but it's um it's for the handful of applications there. worked pretty well because we have an understanding of what the development is supposed to be and what the uses are supposed to be

and and that only applies if there is like an established plan for the area. Is that right? Um correct. I I think that is how we worded it. Um consistency with an established plan. Yes. And anything annexed into the city would be in the urban growth boundary already and would be um usually concept planned for the uses that are being proposed. Excellent. So there would always be a process that had gone through. Perfect. Yeah.

Great. Thank you. The next portion of the public hearing will provide an opportunity for the planning commission to hear testimony from audience members. We will take public testimony in the following order. Those present city hall. Okay. And those participating remotely via teleconference. If you are online and would like to speak, please raise your hand now. I do not have any hands raised. Okay, that okay. We didn't hear from the audience. Okay. What if any discussion does any commissioner wish to have amongst us to help or everybody here to help ensure that they've gathered all the information they need to make a decision? I note this is different than discussion we will have to deliberate once a motion is made. Discussion at this point should focus on ensuring understanding of the facts presented and clarifying particular points rather than expressing conclusions which we will do in a few minutes.

Do we have any discussion to have? No, no, I think we've had a lot of discussion on this topic. We've over the months hearing. No further discussion, I am prepared to close the hearing. Once the hearing is closed, there cannot be any other discussion, comment or questions pertaining to the material matters of the case file except among commissioners. However, the commission may ask staff specific clarifying procedural questions. Please confirm there is no additional discussions needed at this point and no further questions of staff or any party as to the issues presented to the commission.

Okay. I declare this public hearing closed at 7:23 p.m. Okay. With a public hearing closed, it is time for the planning commission to entertain a motion to deliberate and make decision on the resolution before us. If a commissioner wishes to amend the staff report in any way, it should be included in the motion. Do I have a motion on resolution number? Can do a motion. So, I move to adopt resolution LP260002 recommending city council adoption of the housing statutory compliance project part one development code amendments. I'll second.

It has been moved and seconded. that to repeat the motion motion. Yeah. Resolution LP26002. Thank you. Any discussion? Okay. I think we in many cases don't have much choice. Kind of have to do what they tell us. Mom and dad said we got to do it. So

I mean there are pieces of this mandated. They're good. I think they're good. I I like the fact that we are um making some of the processes easier um more streamlined. Um obviously to make um residents more affordable, right? Reducing time and effort and and complexity um will help a little. So I I definitely agree with uh the changes that have been made. Yeah, I'd agree with that. I think that even the pieces of this that aren't mandated by the state seem to be in alignment with the spirit of them and and I think it's it's well crafted. So, I like the way that it's structured. I I do acknowledge that this like the especially the things that are mandated put a bit more onus on us and the city council and and the citizens being a lot more involved in maybe the master planning process or or coming up with a vision for what the what these places might be. Um, but I I think that's something we already are pretty good at as a city and hopefully get better at. So, yeah.

Great. Okay. Hearing no further discussion, I will call the question. All in favor? I I I I and all. Anybody opposed or all opposed? All right. The motion carries five to five. Five zero

or five to zero. First timer here. Five. I love how you all chimed in. Okay. All right. Uh the next topic more paperwork than usual today is our work session. Town center building heightwaver. Get to my work session. The work session is a chance for the planning commission to gain additional understanding of and provide guidance on ongoing legislative projects prior to a public hearing. And we already had our public hearing regarding this.

Well, this item's new and could be coming before you for a public hearing later.

A later. Okay. Okay. This is different. Okay. Um, as a courtesy, the planning commission will at this time as time permits, allow for limited public comment on the topic after the staff have presented their report for the commission's purpose of in continuing to understand the project. However, it should be noted that this is not a public hearing and any participants are encouraged to participate in future public hearings for legal standing purposes. So, at this time, I call for the city staff to present information they have prepared for the work session. Let city staff present. Thank you, Chair Seanova, and thank you, planning commission members. Um, I am Amanda Guile Hinman, the city attorney. And as I was reviewing my notes for tonight's presentation, I realized among the numerous presentations that I have given both to council and various boards and commissions, I don't think I have ever given a presentation in front of the planning commission. So, this is a first for me. And I I also want to give um a special shout out to Kim and Heather for their work. Um this last weekend I was uh presenting on our housing statutory compliance project and I will say despite the compressed time frame we are well ahead of a lot of jurisdictions who are all just trying to figure it out. So um really the the only reason I was able to talk at all coherently about it was because of those two and the amazing work that they've done in such a short time frame. But now to the topic at hand um the town center building height waiver um discussion. So the agenda for tonight is to do a project overview. Um and then I'll talk a little bit about the origination of this waiver language. Then I'm going to go over the specifics of the waiver provision as it currently stands. Um then we'll talk about the task force and the feedback so far received. And then there's some questions in your in the staff report for planning commission that we're hoping to give get um some some additional input to take back to

the task force. So um as a as an overview of the project um I think most of you are aware of this so I apologize if it's a little bit redundant but the city council adopted ordinance number 835 which established a new town center plan for the redevelopment of the Wilsonville T town center. uh that occurred in 2019. That uh uh ordinance was accompanied with also amendments to the city's comprehensive plan text and map, the development code, and the city zoning map. Of particular importance for the planning commission are the amendments to the town development code provisions for town center, particularly the building height waiver provision. One thing that I did want to note and um it was part of your discussion in the earlier public hearing is the waiver provision that is in the town center provisions are essentially in addition to the waiver the general waiver provision. We have always had a building height waiver provision in our general waiver. So, what the town center um building height waiver provision was essentially to put additional context around if you're seeking if a development is seeking a waiver to either floor plate or building height in particular circumstances. So, after the council adopted that town center plan, uh the city began work on implementation items identified in the town center plan. One such implementation action item ED7 called for the city's urban renewal agency to conduct a feasibility study to determine how urban renewal might be implemented in the Wilsonville Town Center. In 2024, the city council referred a ballot measure seeking an advisory vote from the Wilsonville electorate seeking approval to establish a new urban renewal district in the Wilsonville Town Center. The advisory vote failed to pass by 54 votes in May 2024. Since then, the city council adopted its 2025 through 27 council goals. Goal four focuses on communications and engagement. The first outcome seeks to provide information to

the community to understand the urban the town center plan, urban renewal, and other funding sources for infrastructure to help inform future council direction to achieve this outcome. Strategy 4.2 2 states that if there are specific areas of interest concerning the town center or urban renewal to review that there would be a development of a strate strategy for the review with specific policy recommendations. On December 1st, 2025, the city council heard a presentation from DHM research which conducted focus group research regarding the town center and also CFM advocates regarding the outcomes from a community questionnaire through the city's website, Let's Talk Wilsonville. Both research efforts confirmed that community members want to see a vibrant and fi thriving Wilsonville Town Center. Respondents were most excited about local amenities, particularly increased local businesses and parks and recreation uh recreational gathering spaces in the town center. Some of the concerns that were raised included concerns about losing a small town feel and the building height of future development in the town center. This feedback led staff to review the Wilsonville code reg governing the town center zone to determine whether any modifications are feasible and compliant with state law to address some concerns expressed by community members. In particular, staff offered an option for council to consider modification to the building height waiver language within the town Wilsonville code that allowed increased building height in the Wilsonville Town Center. The council was supportive of exploring potential revisions to this town center waiver provision and also indicated that it wanted a task force to assist in to consider recom and to recommend any revisions to the waiver provision. So the council adopted resolution 3244 it's in your packet which directed staff to create a town center building height waiver task force to explore potential updates to the Wilsonville code provision that contemplates a waiver to

building heights in town center. In the next slides, we're going to go over um the town center building height waiver language and how that provision came to be. And then we'll review the work of the task force so far in considering potential updates to the waiver provision. And then like I mentioned, we'll ask the uh planning commission for some feedback to take back to the task force as it prepares to make a recommendation to the planning commission regarding the building height waiver language. So to orient you because it matters for this discussion is to um briefly describe um the subd districts that are contemplated in the Wilsonville Town Center. So while there is an overarching town center zone that encompasses all the areas that you're um seeing kind of around, you know, basically adjacent to or within the town center loop. Um each area is defined by a subdist and those subdists have different requirements. So, the subdist closest to the freeway, it's CMU, that's for commercial mixed use. It was contemplated to have um the tallest buildings um closest to the freeway uh mainly for things things that the planning commission city council talked about were things like, you know, it's um you have good visual from the freeway with taller buildings. It's further away from the residential area to the east. So, put the higher taller buildings there. Then you have MU, which is mixed use. That's kind of the general um over a general subd district that covers everywhere else that isn't one of the other uh provisions. Um that allows for different types of mixeduse that we're going to go over. And then the main street district, that was really um a huge component of the town center plan and the development code. It's probably some of the area that has some of the most prescriptive um language about development to occur there because the community and the planning commission, city council really wanted to make sure

that that main street district held true to the vision that's contemplated in the plan. And then finally, NMU is neighborhood mixeduse. That's the area closest to the residential neighborhoods right across the street from us. Um the idea being that uh basically you're scaling down from closest to the freeway down towards smaller scale as you get to the residential area. So that contemplates more two to threetory town homes or smaller commercial developments. So keep this map in mind as we talk about uh the building height waiver. So let's talk about the history um of the building height waiver. So where this originally started from was when when we have a a master planning document that sets really sets the vision, the values, the overall map um that guides the regulating um items, the regulating documents that really implement that plan. So the town center plan is kind of where we start. Things like the development code are an outcome of the plan. they're supposed to be the the mechanism to implement that plan vision when development comes in to our door. Um so when the particularly when the planning commission was discussing um retail uses, there was a lot of discussion about the size of retail use in Town Center, particularly looking at the floor plate. So how big how big is the square footage of the building? um and the height. So, a lot of the discussion around the building height waiver actually more more directly focused on the floor plate. The floor plate being um do we limit where where's the where's the sweet spot for for retail use. Um, and there was a lot of debate, particularly in 2018 and into 2019 in with the planning commission and the city council about is it 30 to

50,000 square feet, where do we see retail use going in the future? It was already starting to shrink down with online presence and the cost of operating a um brick-andmortar store. And so planning commission uh received uh we had a retail expert who assisted um the planning commission and city council in that discussion. We brought in um examples from around the region to sort of orient what is a 30,000 foot building versus a 50,000 foot building. Um but during that discussion, what also occurred was commissioners were um concerned, particularly considering that the main street district was going to be pretty prescriptive that if we were too prescriptive in the other areas, we would be significantly limiting the opportunity for development and that market really drives what development is going to occur. And if we are too prescriptive, if we're too limiting, then we might not see development occur at all in Town Center. So that's where this discussion then led to um we need to start looking at uh both floor plate and building height as a as a combination package to make sure that we're not missing an opportunity for development to occur in Town Center as long as it's still consistent with the overall vision of the town center plan. So, in your packet, you'll see there are links um to all the planning commission and city council meetings where this was discussed. It started out, like I said, initially as a concern about um making sure that the code wasn't too prescriptive and limiting the opportunities um and then sort of flushed out into the the language that we see. So, um I think the kind of preeminent e uh meeting which is also highlighted on that attachment in your packet is the January 19th uh January 2019 planning

commission meeting. That's where this uh chart was provided in a PowerPoint to the planning commission. So, what they were looking at, like I said, was really around floor plate. um not necessarily around building height so much because that was already kind of flushed out as far and we'll get to what that what that ended up being but the discussion really was around floor plates. So they were looking at different options. So you'll see this discussion of like 30,000 per per use versus 30,000 per floor. The idea being, let's say in Main Street district, mixeduse district, neighborhood mixeduse, I'm using option one as an as an example, is that even if you had a two-story building, you would be limited in the entire building to 30,000 square feet of that retail use. But in commercial mixed use, you could get 30,000 square feet per floor. So if you had two floors, you could get 60,000 square feet total of that use. So that's an option one. So just so you understand the context of the use versus floor, but you'll see that at the bottom there's this option X and the option X talks about that only in mixed use and commercial mixed use that there could be a consideration for a waiver process to exceed the maximum square footage per floor if additional criteria are met. So that's where we really started talking about um this waiver provision was in that section uh or was was in that meeting with this item highlighted. Um so what they what they ended up settling on was none of these. They called it option 1.5 which was um for 30,000 square feet per use for the main street uh district and the neighborhood mixed use 30,000 square feet per floor for mixed use and commercial mixeduse and to add in option X to allow a waiver to exceed the maximum square footage per floor in

neighborhood in or excuse me in mixed use and commercial mixeduse. And for that waiver, an applicant would have to pro prove that the proposal met the intent of the vision and achieved some of the performance standards through a menu of success indicators. So, I'm going to um direct you to your packet because I think because I want to highlight where you now see this um in our code, this this discussion in our code. So, if you turn to um page 459 of of your um packet, it talks about the outright allowed uses. Um it's 02A, open uh open O2A and then it lists like what are the outright allowed uses. You'll see F F says retail sales and service of retail products under a footprint of 30,000 square feet per use. So outright anywhere in town center, you can have 30,000 square ft of retail use anywhere. Then if you drop down a little bit just to the bottom of the page, it starts there's point you'll see a 03 and then the A and it talks about commercial mixeduse. It's and it says what's on the very top of the next page. So now I'm on 460. It says additional permitted uses. So this is only in C commercial mixeduse. It says a single single user commercial or retail may exceed the 30,000 square ft if located on more than one story of a multi-story building. So that's where you're getting into this 30,000 square feet per floor for commercial mixed use. And then if you drop down to the C where it talks about mixed use, it basically does the same thing as the commercial mixeduse. It adds an additional permitted use of that they may exceed 30,000 square feet if located on one on more than one story of a multi-story building. And then if you turn to page 470 of your

code or I mean of your packet that's where the current language of the waiver to the development standards is contained and and we'll get to the ins and outs of it but that's where this is now all this chart through additional discussions both at the planning commission and city council has ended up codified in our code. So then the planning commission reviewed the code language again at its March 13, 2019 meeting. Um there was additional discussions which we'll get to about the menu op items, the two menus that are it used to it was originally one menu and then it was parsed out into two menus. We'll talk about why that was or two two yeah two menus that they have to pull from um if any if a developer's applying for a waiver. Um, so they wanted updates to those menu options, but they ultimately recommended uh coun they recommended adoption of that development code language to the city council at its March 13, 2019 meeting. So in summary of the history is that we the staff got direction from planning commission for minimum and maximum stories and floor plates. will go over what those outright allowed minimum and maximum stories are, but they did want flexibility um to make sure that we weren't too prescriptive, too limiting for development to occur and might not then see any development occur. Um and they didn't want to discourage development as long as it continued to be consistent with what the vision of the town center plan was. So then, like I said, what that led to um is, and this is also in your packet, this is on page um 469. So this table two is part of the town center um zoning regulations and it lays out the outright

permitted build stories. So we've already talked about square footage. That's the floor plate. Think about that as the floor plate, that 30,000 ft. Now, this is the building height. So everywhere in town center the m minimum building height is two stories outright permitted use has to be a minimum of two stories. Then there is a maximum building height depending on which subdist you're in. So if you're in neighborhood mixeduse closest to residential you can only go up to three. So it's two or three stories that's it. Um in mixed use and main street district it's two to four stories. And then in commercial mixed use it's two to five stories. So again it's that scaling down. So the highest buildings and on next to the freeway scaling down to the residential area to the east. I want to make a note here. I want to highlight a note here because it is important for the task force discussion and some of the feedback that we're seeking from you is there are these notes that follow that table that I was just um just had up on the screen. One of them is being note 4. So note four says that within the main street district, the mixeduse district, and the commercial mixeduse district, a development could get a bonus floor if they are providing a certain amount of affordable housing within that development. So that's important because that's not a waiver. That is an additional allowed bu uh story that could be added for affordable housing. So, it's important when you're talking about how tall could a building be built, you need to know that there's this this note that an additional floor could be added for affordable, you know, to account for affordable housing in three of the four subd districts. Again, this does not address neighborhood mixeduse. This does not apply, that note does not apply to the neighborhood mixeduse. Okay. So, then getting into the actual waiver provision. So what it what it essentially says is that the development review board um which right now processes waivers as well um in our general from our general

waiver provision um may approve a waiver as to the size of the ground floor. So that 30,000 square feet that size of the ground floor of a building floor plate and or the number of stories of a building within the mixeduse and commercial mixeduse subdists as long as it that development is also then achieving one from one item from each of the two menus that are below this part that I've um chosen here to to highlight. So again, what this is getting at is this waiver does not apply to neighborhood mixeduse. It does not apply to the main street district. It's encompassing both increasing or decreasing, so that minimum of two stories, increasing or decreasing the building height and potentially increasing the floor plate. So, well, let me let me step back before I get into all the options that the the planning commission considered or the task force considered. So when we were um when when we were looking at the feedback from the input that we that the city received from the fall and um was summarized at the stat at the council meeting on December 1st. Uh what we were looking at as potential options. You know it's I think it's very frustrating for our community to hear well the state tells us we can't do something and now our hands are tied. We have no options. So what staff did when we saw this um concern around um size of buildings and like that what is going to be the feel when you walk through town center? We want to make sure that we that we want to make sure that if there's any opportunity for the council to look at that issue um in a meaningful way, we wanted to offer that to the council. So, we went through the development code and what we have to um work with is that as you saw tonight is

that the state has a lot of housing laws um that are very prescriptive and um force certain mandates on cities like Wilsonville. So when it comes to simply eliminating an a use or decreasing outright permitted uses, there's considerations around the impact that we may have in being compliant with state law, being compliant with approved um plans that the state has already essentially signed off on in the process that we go through every time we do one of do one of these uh master planning uh exercises. And also some constitutional considerations for anybody who owns property in Town Center because whenever you are reszoning um a property, which means you're changing or you're further restricting what might be allowed on that property, those property owners are entitled to notice and potentially can argue that you are um devaluing their property. So, we're navigating those considerations while trying to find something that might be available for the council to to consider um regarding the feedback that they heard from the community. So, as we read through the code, we highlighted what is highlighted before you, and that is around the building height language, the waiver in particular, because as you can see, I think it's fair to say it's not it it's somewhat imprecise in its language. And um especially when you start thinking about the bonus floor for the affordable housing, you know, it probably would be better. it it definitely could use some refinement. So staff brought that to city council um as something to consider and at and city council then adopted resolution 3244 that included the establishment of the task force. It laid

out in that resolution specific um categories of of um participants that it wanted on the task force. It also put together a time. It also included a timeline for doing that work, which talk about compressed. It was significantly compressed. Um I think every one of you got an email to participate on it because it it's a very tight timeline. And so um we are very grateful for our task force members who um have been able to participate and I think the discussions that we'll get into that they had on the 21st were really uh robust and and insightful. So with that, I'm going to get into the options that were considered by the task force. And I realized I didn't include the asterisk that's here what that means. So I will make sure to go over that. So we went through as staff and put together some options um around limiting the increase in building height. Um so option one and and all the options that were presented to the task force are in your packet. I'm doing the chart because I think the chart's simpler to to kind of get your head around. So, option one would have considered allowing an additional story both in mixed use and commercial mixed use and also keeping that bonus floor. Option two was yes, allowing an additional story in mixed use and commercial mixed use, but not if you're getting the bonus floor. So, it's a one or the other. Option three looked at um allowing an additional story in mix in the mixed use but not the commercial mixed use but allowing for that additional um story for affordable housing. So you'll see the maxes kind of playing out um depending on which lever you're pulling. And then option four um looked at allowing for an additional story in the mixed use, not allowing an additional story in commercial mixed use, and not allowing that waiver if

you're getting a bonus floor for affordable housing. So you'll see essentially the option four is the most restrictive, option one is the least restrictive as far as these options that were considered. We also as we'll talk about a little bit also ga as part of the task force feedback that they gave us on the 21st was what other options should we consider that we haven't presented you know these aren't the universe of options um the asterisk is something additional that staff had talked about which is um anywhere so remember mixed use kind of straddles Main Street District the asterisk was consider no increase in building height if you're in the mixeduse subdist that's next to neighborhood mixeduse. So basically, it wouldn't allow any um additional waiver to increase if you're in the area as you're kind of scaling down. Again, if you think that scale down from I5 um that's what that asterisk means. So it's like that could also be a factor that could be considered. um when the task force discuss the task force um reviewed all these options in small groups uh in in three small groups and I've provided a summary and we'll go over kind of the summary overarching summary but I also provided the summary of the report out reports out from each of the groups. So um one of the things that I just want to highlight here that also came out from that discussion uh in one of the smaller groups that gained some traction among some of the task force members was that the for mixed use the mixeduse subdist again it straddles Main Street District is that west of the Main Street district so closer to I5 that you could only ask for a waiver to increase building height but not decrease it. So you couldn't have one-story buildings there. Then east of the main street district, so closer to neighborhood mixuse, closer to the residential area, you could only get a waiver to decrease. Um, so no, not

allow. And that um they also discussed you could either do a bonus floor or that this option five would also be the you don't get both a bonus floor and a waiver. It's one or the other. So that was all discussed um by the task force. the overarching sentiment um I think across the board was seven stories is too much. Um that they felt like that wasn't consistent with the town center plan vision. Um and so basically it kind of took out option one from from that feedback. I think there was only one person on the task force who was interested in at least continuing to consider option one. Uh I think uh some of them a good chunk of them were supportive of one only one additional story the bonus floor or the waiver not both. Um east of Main Street district so the one nearest the residential neighborhood some were supportive of no building height increase at all. Um some also commented that option four felt too limiting. And then a a final discussion item uh that came out that we were not anticipating was looking at our menu items um and potentially further refining them. So for example, one of the things that was brought up is there one of the options in the menu items is around um earth advantage certification or lead certification. And one of the people commented basically under Oregon's building code with the energy efficiency specialty code I think is what it's called. You pretty much meet those standards now um as a requirement. So is it really an additional benefit that's being provided to the community if you can check that box if it's basically already required anyway? So there was a lot of discussion amongst the task force about potentially opening up the menu items as well for discussion. So, you'll see one of your questions is about

looking at the the menu items. Um, so before we get into questions, um, because I want to make sure that we get really meaningful feedback, are you do you have questions for, um, do you have questions about anything that we've discussed that might help inform how you answer or provide input on the questions that I can um, answer? Now, I hear all the clicks. Uh so I have one question just you know kind of based upon community feedback. Um how come there wasn't an option six of just no waiverss?

Yeah that's a great question. Um so we told the the task force from the beginning because there is already a development that has been approved for a building height waiver to increase and they are in the main they are in the um mixeduse uh west of the main street district. So on the side that is towards I5 um because that has already been approved, it's entitled, it's permitted, it's going to be developed that we didn't staff were not recommending that we immediately create a legally non-conforming building structure. That's the first one out of the gate essentially. Uh two of the three task force um the small groups did discuss an option for no waiver. And so just so you know, the task force is made up of nine nine members. So each of the groups had three people in it. So the two of the three that did discuss it, the majority from those two of the three did not agree to no waiver when they reported out, but that was feedback that was documented that two of the task force members did want to see a no waiver option and that was discussed amongst the group. But there wasn't other um support for that. But we did we staff did tell um the task force that was why we um that wasn't an option being presented is because there's already a building that has that and we didn't want to create a legally non-conforming structure right out of the gate with the very first building

and and that couldn't be just reszoned to say that was like that couldn't be defined as a CMU. Couldn't you just define that as a special zoning and then it wouldn't matter anymore? that one that one plot via CMU because that would a five-story building would qualify under CMU. Um I'm not sure that we can reszone a I I mean I'd have to ask the planning director, but um reszoning a property that's already been approved for a development under the current zoning.

Well, it's a subdist, right? It's they're subd districts. So it's actually not a different zone. They are just zoned town center. So everything in town center is zoned town center and then based on the subd district you're in allows you different there's different design standards or different allowances. Um so could you make that one property a CMU? You could district potentially modify the map. It would require a zone change like to the zoning code, not just like a um modifying the zone for the specific property.

So, it wouldn't be a zoning order, it would be a zoning code change that was not contemplated uh prior to just right now. So, I don't know in terms of like where we would land on that and whether that would um be um a solution we'd want to go with, but I'm just going back up to the map so I can look at it real quick. So, yeah. So where on the map is that? So it would create um it would create like a a zoning

island is what we typically call it in um planneries planner speak. It would be a zoning island um because the property actually would then be surrounded by MU um and MSD and is currently not adjacent to the CMU. So then you would potentially beg the question and we typically don't allow that. I would have to actually look at our development code and see if that's something that's disallowed or just not encouraged. um and whether that would then mean those other two properties um which part of it is actually the fries property that little triangle and then the other parcel is McDonald's. So we'd have to look at whether or not modifying the one would actually require us to modify all three and then that discussion would be a part of your contemplation, the task force contemplation councils if that's something that's being put on the table. But I I'm not sure because it doesn't live in section D which I believe is

what the resolution calls for. Mhm. Is it possible to hover over like where it is? Can you see my Can Oh, yeah. You can see. Yeah. So, the the property we're talking about is this property right here. Okay. So, this is the McDonald's. This is part of the current price property. This little um triangle. But then, yeah, you could expand the CMU to cover that one. I mean, I guess there's like three pieces. Yeah. I mean, when we get what I might do, um, depending on when we get to the discussion is that if that is something that the planning commission feels like you would like

to relay to city council, we're going to city council in work session on Monday. So, city council's direction has been to only look at subsection D of the waiver language. this is outside of that, but if that is something that the that planning commission would recommend that city council give direction for staff to do, um, then we'll provide that feedback. Yeah.

Well, I I because it just seems like it's it's almost like a foregone conclusion if the first building there is already coming in with a waiver outside of what was designed. And then you're saying, well, now we have to let everyone do it because the first one did it. But if you make that small tweak then it comes back to the question of okay what waivers should we grant for the other areas as opposed to like saying it's already fa plea that like we already said one person's going to do it so now everyone gets to

that's creative yeah I think it might be better to walk through some of the I think this is that's a great thing for us to note and to think about how what information we might be able to bring back to you and the task force um if that is a discussion we're going to continue but it might be helpful to kind of um continue to work through questions and then have a discussion around um the questions we have for you to kind of get a sense of whether that's a direction we might want to head or not. Um I would also note I think Amanda mentioned this but um it's been a long week already even though it's only Wednesday and um we do have height waiverss throughout the city as well. So I think in part there was a recognition that we allow height waiverss everywhere. Um and so to some extent we weren't necessarily looking to just delete them right out of the gate because they um can be can be helpful. That's not to say we don't we wouldn't consider it here but um they can be helpful um when you're looking um at you know project development. So, as with all of our other waiverss, there is like a process to provide some flexibility, but there's a higher standard that needs to be met and addressed. And so, in Town Center, you have to meet the standard that's required of all of our waivers. So those who have been on development review board, you'll remember there's the waiver language about like there's either it's either providing the same um kind of purpose in a different way or if it's or it's providing a better design. So that's it's a kind of a higher threshold. It also has to um or it has like there's some kind of limiting factor on the property. It could be like an existing wetland or a significant resource that then requires kind of a a waiver in order to preserve that area. But you might want the waiver in order

to preserve a tree grove or a wetland. Um it so that has to be met which is essentially the standard for all of our waivers and then in town center you have to meet that in addition to then those two menus. So, I just wanted to clarify like kind of how those two different waivers interact because I know several of you have experience with applying our waivers. And then that would also go through the DRB process which would also require a chance for public input. Mhm.

Um it it would until your residential compliance standards that we just approved go into effect July 1. um if it's a residential project. So if it's a residential project, it would not go to the development review board. It would go through planning commission or through the planning director. Um if it were a non-residentidential project, then it would go to the development review board. But how does that work for mixed use? Um so the interpretation um that we have made based on feedback from the state um and the legislation is that it would apply to a mixeduse building that there would not be development review on a mixeduse building.

There'd be development review but it would go through the planning commission, not the board or planning director, not the board. So there wouldn't there wouldn't be public input on a mixeduse building that had residential. you could have written public input that would be considered by the staff and making their decision on on it. Okay? Because that that seems a little bit different than what we voted on earlier, which was just residential. That would not be subject to the DRB. So I I think also what's challenging here is how the state has defined residential development. It's basically if there's any unit that is

residential in the development essentially what the state is telling us is that's residential development. So I was just at the presentation I was talking about Bend allows for a caretaker um uh structure within an industrial development that technically now is a residential development because it allows for a caretaker unit. So if it has a caretaker unit, it's now a residential development and outside the scope of, you know, whatever standard process they might have. So not intent. Yeah. So also imprecise language there,

but what that means practically is that we're putting the the city is putting a lot of trust in our staff to make determinations that are in the best interest of the city. Right? So we're being required to, right? We're obligated by the state. So, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every waiver gets approved. Is that right? Correct. We are not obligated to approve it. We are just obligated to review it at an administrative level. I had one more question. Yes. If possible.

Of course. Um I I read through the materials and I was listening to you talk, but I think I need it described just one more time. What is the difference between a bonus floor and I I understand like the the uh the affordable housing floor? That's an extra floor, but what where is the where does the bonus floor come from? That's separate than the affordable housing.

No, it is for affordable housing. So, you have to um provide a certain amount of affordable housing within the develop within that particular project to then gain that bonus floor. So the idea is I think and Miranda correct me if I'm wrong actually if you go watch the planning commission meetings you can see eight eight years ago Miranda and Amanda um but uh the idea being that you know affordable housing developments are extremely expensive to build and they don't generate the income to build them by the private market. That's why they're heavily subsidized and supported by different government programs. Um, so what this was trying what that bonus floor is trying to do is say within that market commercial development if you can provide some affordable housing that does not require you know the city or the state to subsidize potentially um at least the city uh you can get a bonus floor. So it is tied to affordable housing. So that's the bonus floor. Maybe that's the one that I understood. The other one then

is a waiver. is the waiver. Yeah. and and the bonus floor um was envisioned fairly early in the project and in the code writing and the waiver for the height as uh Manda described really came out at the kind of end of the project because um there was because all along we were talking about a lot of support for two three fourstory buildings and some five-story buildings buildings, which is why you see the five in the CMU, is that there was um there was kind of this minimum of two stories. And so I called it out at a certain point to make sure is this specifically what we want and it was a discussion point at the task force and uh with council and the commission uh based on everything we'd heard through the process and that because you know there was some support for some of the singlestory buildings but it was very particular of which ones. Uh, Commissioner Carr remembers this quite well. And so, um, the discussion was really about is that truly kind of what we want to do. And so, it was interesting because I think at the time when we were actually working through that process, we weren't really thinking about the bonus story with the affordable housing. Um, we were really focused on um, the waiver language for like anchor tenants for a single story and how big is that, how big of a floor plate, how much wiggle room do we want there. um and what are we really trying to target? What's that right number? Um and so it really wasn't envisioned even though it technically was written in a way in which it allows the which we typically would allow a waiver potentially for additional height but without those menu items. And so, um, it is interesting where we didn't call out this inter relationship because at the

time we really didn't make the connection between that bonus and then the waiver, which is why I think it's we we both think it's really important to do that now, uh, especially as we're having a conversation with the task force. I hope that helps. So, the bonus was really driven by a desire to help incentivize some amount of affordable housing in Town Center and potentially support mixed income type housing. Um the waiver was really about providing additional flexibility, especially at the beginning part of the development of the town center in ensuring that we weren't boxing ourselves in and we were going to allow development that might look a little different than we expected it might um but that we that still supported the the vision and so it was really about flexibility. So are they necessarily independent mechanisms or is it possible for us to cons like to think of them as the same? So like you can I guess that's what we're one of the options is like you can do one or the other but you can't do both, right? So so they're not they're not completely independent mechanisms. We have the option to kind of consider them as

separate. Yeah. Mutual sort of options. Yeah. Yeah. I think we wanted to make it abundantly clear that um when you're talking about in practice an application comes into the planning division are we certain about when we're talking about a limit are we being certain very clear about what the limit is considering everything and so we want to make sure that we were expressly calling that out so the task force could provide feedback on that you know if somebody's asking for a bonus floor or is able able to get a bonus floor do you want them to be able to also get a waiver for an additional floor and I think that's the option one and it was pretty clear that that was not desired. Got it.

Commissioner car I'm just curious the the building going on to Sherry's lot. Was that a was that a waiver or was that a a bonus floor? It was a waiver. It was a waiver. Okay. What were the benefits they provided uh to accommodate that waiver? I looked it up at the task force meeting and have already forgotten. Um I believe it well one was the green building um standard. I have I can look up the other one and report back here in a minute. One of the things and I so appreciate whoever watched all those videos and put the times. That was a real fun Sunday for me. Let me tell you.

Thank you because I spent a lot of time watching them. But it gave me insight in that into those robust discussions and they were very passionate discussions which I appreciated. So a lot of thought went into it to like how do we not box ourselves in? How do we support what our people want with like this beautiful cozy was the cozy was a very common word

like you know town center and at the same time have enough density that it supports the businesses that we want there so they don't go out of business. You know the economic side of it. So, a lot of thought went into that. But I did hear um also like if we do grant these waiverss like we don't somebody else is not going to come in and ask for the same waiver. Well, we've already taken care of that here. Like whether it was arts or whatever it was like it it was addressed. So like the same things were not being addressed with the same buildings throughout

the development. Um, so I'm like, this this was a waiver and address something like is there somebody else that's going to come in in the same area and address the same thing and be able to stamp these out?

Um, I don't know if we're just like in free question mode yet or we're waiting to get there. If if you all are ready to move on, I I'll go to the prompts. Sure. Okay, let me go. Let me arrow back. And I Oh, go ahead. No, go ahead. Well, um they the applicant selected item three and item four from the menus. Um so now, okay, it didn't it didn't say the words there. Do you you have in front of you right now?

So item four. So menu two, item four, that's the certifi the environmental certification. And you said item three from menu one. Provision of ground floor facads that include additional supporting storefronts. The primary entrances of all buildings shall be located on the primary street frontage.

So there will be on Park Place there is retail. Um that's the primary frontage and you will have multiple um entrances for the various storefronts. So, that's where it's interesting because um it that may not make intuitive sense if we're thinking about a building that's taller, but what was envisioned was if we allowed something greater than 30,000 square ft. So now maybe you have a 45,000t building and so you have a much longer facade. And so what you're trying to mitigate for is that that's less now inherently less pedestrianoriented, less creating this like cozy um town center. And so having additional storefront entrances provides like that additional permeability into the buildings. It creates like the the idea that you're now going to have probably meant potentially multiple um like retailers within that single space. So, think of like um a grocery store that also has like a cafe or um something of that nature. And so, you're creating that additional kind of walkability um and amenities for the community that the larger building and potentially larger and shorter building is detracting from.

And actually, that's a good segue because I know one of the questions also about this about in in this is the menu items. So just briefly the reason that the menu started as one and broke out into two is there was um discussion in the on the planning commission about essentially trying with the menu options to achie achieve two goals. Number one is to mitigate the impact of a bigger building whether it's larger or taller is to mitigate that feeling. Um and then the second one is an additional community benefit. So if if you're getting something additional the community should get something additional. So that's where where the two menu options were separated out is impact, you know, addressing the impact of the building and then a community benefit is the menu too. So with that, um, I tried to because Miranda said that's too many words on a page. So I tried to shorten the prompts that are in your packet for this slide. So the first question is basically, what do you want the task force to consider as it's looking at capping building heights? Um, and would you support a cap? So, like I mentioned, task force pretty clearly did not want it to go up to seven stories. There's some debate about where it falls less than that. Um, but yeah, so that's the first first prompt.

Commissioner, Amanda, just quickly tell tell us again the process going forward. After you receive comments from us, it goes back to the task force. Yeah. Yep. So, we are meeting with uh planning commission today. We're meeting with council and work session on Monday. Task force meets on Tuesday. Oh, wow.

So, um they'll be getting their packets with your input. Um but we'll have to verbally give the feedback from council. Um so, that is the current plan is for that Tuesday. It is scheduled to come back to you all for a work session um at your June meeting depending on where we get with the task force. Um it may or may not need another meeting. Um it was originally contemplating just three given the compressed time frame, but depending on the discussion, we may need a fourth. And that represents the third meeting. Yes. And then back to the planning commission in June. Yep. And back to the city council after that. Yes. I'd have to remember the exact day, but Yeah. Yeah.

And so the comments that you've provided in the staff report are just summarized comments from the task force. Yep. We wanted to make sure that the task force wasn't giving you all a recommendation right out of the gate because it's important to make sure that the planning commission and city council are able to give some additional feedback that the task force can consider before making a recommendation to the planning commission. So one of the only conclusive strong comments was option one was not wellreceived by the task force. Yeah, I think that would be fair to say. Okay. Mhm. The the summary you've provided, the background is very helpful. So So thank you, Commissioner Gene.

Okay. So this may sound kind of dumb. Um that's fine. I've always said there there are actually dumb questions. Um but um for some of the waiverss or the bonus floors, was there any consideration given to building down as opposed to up? It it does allow for building down. So is there a cap like but is the down floor counted as part of say say you had a wanted a five a five floor building right? If you had the is basement floor one and then you would have four above. I apologize. Sorry I thought you meant decreasing the building. No like build like sorry like actually like building down like okay maybe

a basement does not include is not um a story. So when you look at the definitions that are provided for um what a story is, it doesn't include the basement. So if you were going something that would make people like more open to five floor buildings as opposed to stories if one of those is a basement or a parking garage

or a parking garage, right? Like if it's if you need the parking for the you know the mixeduse residential that's a floor that would be the bottom as opposed to like ground level garage. I mean that at least takes care of like the height what you see. I mean I don't know if the soil supports digging too far down here. I mean that was another question I had right is like we're talking about like how high the buildings can go but we also live in like we're close to water or in a high earthquake zone. Are we like making it less feasible if we keep building up because then the engineering costs are going to rise? um where like I'm sure there's a sweet spot with engineering

on the size of a building versus cost benefit analysis. I mean right now the sweet spot is four over one. If you had asked me this question 10 years ago it would have been three over one. Yeah. And part of that is because engineering changes. So um

and so yeah and maybe I'll just like get my questions out of the way and then I'll sit and shut up. But um so um one of the other things that I actually thought was a great idea from the citizens comment which um from from George I believe was like well could we put a moratorum on the height waiverss to see like what it looks like as it starts to develop. Do we because like one of the things is this was like a precoid plan. We're in a postcoid world having lived through COVID like nobody knows what's going to happen in the next 10 years. Are we giving away the farm or like limiting ourselves too much or not limiting ourselves enough if we just say from the get-go like you can do every everybody gets a waiver or nobody gets a waiver? Um would it be better to say because this is supposed to be like a 30 to 40 year plan, right? Like hey um we have our zoning restrictions which is like the biggest is five close to the freeway. Everything else is four down to three. Let's see what happens over 10 years. Are developers into it? is it working or are they like no we're not going to build because we're not going to be able to make money unless it's bigger and then you can be like okay well maybe we need to revisit that um again like who knows 10 years from now maybe like mixed residential is like not cool anymore and people are like we want strip malls again which I highly doubt but like you know you don't know right so are we like almost limiting ourselves too much by saying we have to allow it or we can't allow it um I thought the mortorium was actually like kind of a good idea to like see what develops And I think that was basically all I have. So I'll try to not ask any more questions.

I I did make I will note I I took comments I took notes of what everyone's comments and that is one that I did flag as um it's not something we've discussed. It's not something we've looked up. So I can't answer is that an option or not, but um we can discuss that internally.

Sorry, one one quick one quick addendum and I promise. But because I feel like like how the project starts is really going to be like prescriptive on whether it becomes successful, right? So if you start out and someone builds a sevenstory mixed residential use place and it ends up being like the Ritz Carlton building in Portland where it goes through bankruptcy and changes ownership and then they like priced it too high and then they have to like cut the prices and they can't find any people to, you know, fill up the bottom levels. Like that's that's like the worst thing we would have, right? because then it's like, oh man, is this thing even going to succeed? So that's kind of where I'm looking at like, well, if we can give it time to grow and see what is needed as opposed to saying just from the start, this is how it has to be, that might be better.

I think that was well said. Um I I agree. Um maybe that fits into our our prompt number five, even where it's like what are the additional options or revisions, whatever. But I I like the idea of a moratorum. um in spirit. So, it's I'd echo that. Um like when I'm looking at question one, is the goal of this question to to is this is the goal of this prompt pretty broad? Like what are we what are we looking for? Okay. So, one of the things as I was hearing public testimony earlier, I was hear I was hearing a few different themes that were emerging, but um one of them seemed to have to do with um this this perception that the city is thinking maybe more than it should about what developers want. Um and and I think that that's maybe something that we should make sure is clear to the task force like what is the balance between uh coming up with a plan that's really human oriented and city oriented what the city wants to do but also recognizing that the city is not a property developer. So we have to attract developers to come in and do this. So what is that sweet spot? What is the what is it that actually attracts developers to come in and build? Can we make sure that that's communicated clearly to the task force and and so they understand the the factors that go into attracting development in our city? And I don't I'm not saying that I know the ins and outs of that. I'm saying that that seems kind of really important for the the decision- making here or the the information.

I mean, it sounds like some of that was included in 2019 when the city had a consultant do that retail assessment. But you're right, it's important to have that balance, but Totally. Yeah. So, it's it's the information I think is there. Maybe it's a little bit outdated, but I agree like it's there. Can we make sure that that's part of the framing when we're prompting the task force to think about these different options for waiverss? Um that that's I'm just basically saying bring it up again, make sure it's highlighted.

Um and maybe if there's any new information like why is 401 401 more important or more desirable, why is that the sweet spot now? Um, I think that would be valuable information for the task force. And maybe one of the other things, too, is as I was reading through um the packet, one of the things that caught my eye that I don't think I had noticed before was in the CMU, um, there's a a clause in there, I think it was on page four, I have on my notes 460, um, but it said you can't have multifamily dwellings immediately adjacent to I5 in the CMU. Um, and one of the public testimonies earlier today was talking about housing and how many housing units we'd be bringing in. And the CMU is the is the is the subdist that would allow the highest building heights. And just kind of to address one of the but address that comment. If the fear is that we're going to have a whole town center district or whole or a significant portion of our town center district that is seventory buildings, can we address the the actual kind of reality that the that we don't actually allow residential in certain areas? Um and we don't and so like we couldn't have a whole series of sevenstory buildings right next to the highway. So that eliminates a significant portion of the CMU that could be seven stories. Can we make sure that we address like some of the that basically address that concern that we would fill up the whole town center zone with, you know, four, five, six, seventory residential units. Um, and make sure that that framing is clear for the task force as well. Um, does that make sense? I don't know

any I'd love to hear what the other commissioners have to say on that. like it the assumptions people are making. What is what is the reality of these things playing out like?

Yeah. Yeah. And and maybe also like what's the what's the actual market demand for this to stuff too? Like would a developer actually come in and build a whole town cent's worth of even if we allowed it, would a would a developer come in and build a town cent's worth of sevenstory residential towers? like is that even feasible in in a 40-year time frame in our opinion? Like regardless of whether we would advocate or allow for it, um it seems like it's relevant to the you know public discourse. So I wonder if we could we could address that in the framing for the task force. Yeah, do you have

I'm trying not to talk. Oh, well, you okay? Because I sometimes have not looked. So, I just want to make sure. I guess what would be helpful um because the other prompts get a little bit more specific about particular things. I guess what would be helpful for us if we go back to and again, we're not saying this is the universe of options. We actually have we've

we've refined we've already worked on refining and adding another option for task for the task force to consider for its Tuesday meeting. But do any of these provide a reaction to you positively or negatively? Um like so for example um the mi the option of the main the mixed use nearer to neighborhood mixed use not being allowed to increase its building height through a waiver process like does that is that something that you think the task force should continue to consider or do you think mixed use on both sides should be considered the same? Um, do you think mixed use next to commercial mixed use like that they should have the same provision or not? I think those would help us in providing further input back to the task force.

Go ahead. I think the approach is consistent with what we've done through those other areas where we ramp up and ramp down. It's just taking it to another extreme, not an extreme, another level. And I think it provides a good transition. I think it should be considered. Is is option five distinct from the other options or like could you apply that same sort of mechanism to the other option? Yeah. So the interesting thing about option five and and Miranda I think that was your

that was your small group. Um, so you can, we ended up having to whiteboard it because I did not understand what they were talking about when we were, but basically, um, is that it would not allow for building height to go to just one story if you're in the mixed use closest to commercial mixed use. Um, only only potentially, right, through a waiver process increase, but that it would only allow the decrease exclusively in the mixed use closest to um the neighborhood mixeduse. Do you want to talk a little bit about where that

Sure. So, because um the transct was a big point of conversation during the original town center planning effort and the task force, I did have um a couple members in my small group who had served on the original task force. So, they remembered that very clearly. um and also remembered some of the discussion around a broader potential mix of uses in that CMU because of the housing um limitations and the ideas that that would be a good place for like potentially hotels or um other types of like commercial buildings that might need the additional height in order to make them profitable um over the long term. And so, uh, they really what they presented was, um, as you're on this side close to Courtzside and where our building sits, um, on the east side of town center is that that the neighborhood mixed use and the, um, which currently does not allow any of the height waiverss would stay that way. And then the mixeduse areas that are adjacent to it would not get to increase, but they would be able to continue to potentially benefit from the decrease in height because that would be a good place for a single story would be adjacent to these smaller height buildings and to the um residential. But then as you move to the main street um on that side of it by I5 um you would be able to go up but not down. So the idea there was that you maintain that ability to have those tallest buildings by I-5 which currently aren't surrounded by residential help to buffer the noise from I-5 um for the rest of the town center. Um and then you keep that transact. So you can't go down there but you can go up. So it's kind of you can go down where you want it to be down but not up and you let it go up but not down kind of where you want to see the taller you want to see that's that's where you want to see the taller buildings being built. And so that's where we should provide that waiver. Um so that that's where they get built as opposed to so if

somebody's looking to put in a you know a five-story building or even a four-story building that they might be looking at property on the west side of the town center as opposed to the east side of the town center. Did option four come about? um saying yes to a waiver because the building on sheries is already five.

So the so option four well yeah basically the the idea behind option four is right now the outright permitted uses the tallest any building could be outright permitted use um in that chart is five stories in the CMU. So the idea here was set everything at no more than five stories. Now that's what the add that's outside of the consideration of the note on the affordable housing because that's um separate. That's not part of the waiver. But basically it's like nothing's going to go above five stories unless there's the bonus floor for um affordable housing. So that's what option four was looking at is essentially you wouldn't go above five stories unless you have affordable housing. anywhere in um the city or anywhere.

But option four said no to allow both. Correct. You cannot have both. So it would be a maximum of five if you allowed a waiver because you'd either allow a waiver or the bonus. You don't get to double stack currently. Correct. But currently the CMU allows you to go up to five stories. The CMU I was so in mixed use. You're you're correct. Um but in CMU you technically could You can't get the bonus. You can't get the bonus because there's no residential in CMU. So you can't there is see this is great. This this is see this is how you get into the practicalities of it.

So there is Miranda correct me if I'm wrong but there is a part of CMU a small part of CMU that would not be considered adjacent to I5. Yeah. It's just directly adjacent. Yeah. And so you can have residential in CMU. Oh, it's just right on the border of I5. You can't. So, you could have a fivetory building right next to I5 and a six-story building closer to downtown. If if it if they got um correct, I mean, yes, if they got a bonus floor, right? Does direct does directly adjacent to I-5 include lots that are across the street from Town Center Loop, but um otherwise directly adjacent.

We have not had an application. So, we have not made that determination of whether the loop is what's considered adjacent. Yeah, because that would seem to be a big question, right? If it says unless it's adjacent to the freeway, like that does change a lot, I would think, based upon what that definition is. Like if the whole CMU zone is just going to be commercial, even if it's mixed commercial where it's office and shops and whatever, but no residential, then that does seem to make a difference between some of the feedback that we've heard from from the public.

Too many thoughts going, right? Not to complicate things further, but um I think in some ways one of the ways we thought you might be able to be helpful to the task force is that you frequently think about the language of code and making updates and what that means in terms of either what how we're achieving a community desire or how we're balancing requirements. There's different code updates that we do. Um the task force, most of them have never dealt with code. They've never contemplated modifying code. They have ideas about thoughts, especially maybe based on conversations they're having in the community about the overall height. But when we think about especially if we start to think about things like the menu items um or what it would mean in relationship to like the CMU adjacent residential um you live in the code more so I think you're hitting on a lot of this through your comments but one thing I guess I would also encourage you to think about is like when you balance those things what are the things you're thinking about internally as you balance and provide feedback to us and that that is helpful information for us to pass along to them like things that it might not be, you know, your opinion on the ideas they've come up with or the options, but more what are things you think they should contemplate as they're as they're considering it because they just they don't do this as often and you get the luxury of doing this every month.

Yeah. So like a perfect example when we were working on our updates for potential language um this option five when they were talking about it they were only talking about the splits between mixed use and one of the things we were doing as we were writing an an option out is well if you only allow an increase in building height for the mixeduse area um closer to I5 but you allow for CMU to go down you've now created a one-story build. Yeah. And so, so what we've put in there is, hey, you need to contemplate what happens with CMU if you do this. Do you want CMU to still have that decrease or not? So, I think that's kind of to Miranda's point, and it sounds like I mean, I'm I'm writing notes down. I as you're contemplating things, I am writing those down. That is still very helpful because it is those things that we want to make sure the task force is being mindful of. So, what does adjacent to I-5 mean? um as we're talking about building height um in these different areas. So that's that's all very helpful for us as we um think through what to talk to.

Do you change that MU West to be classified different than MU East? It would still have give you different a set of different a capability of a different set of rules.

Yes. So how um we've the task force had some really great discussion that also illuminated things for us from our first code right which was really help our first attempt at this uh we are further parsing out the different waiver options. So, the floor plate option is now kind of separated out and the floor plate. So, it's getting sorry, it's getting into the weeds and I know we're already pretty late into the evening, but the floor plate increase was really contemplated if you're decreasing building height. So, if you're going down to one story, you're you're wanting a larger floor plate.

The code right now does not say that. So we are saying you can increase floor plate as draft language for them to look at is you can increase floor plate if you're decreasing building height but you don't get to increase floor plate if you're increasing building height. So it's those it's those nuances that if you look at you know if you look at when we talk about language being somewhat imprecise saying the size of the ground the floor plate andor building height can be subject to a waiver like

you always can look back at your work product and go we could have been we could have done this a little bit better and this is our opportunity that's that's what this opportunity is really providing to us. So, um, we're further parsing those things out to be more clear and explicit. So, that way when they do come to planning or to the DRB, we can be clear about what is allowed within this waiver or not. Additionally, one of the things that I think is already in the options that you're seeing as draft is, you know, none of this provision calls out whether people can just bypass all of this and go straight to the general waiver provision for, let's say, neighborhood mixed use. True.

Or main street district. So, there's an express call out that you can't go get that general waiver provision. That's allowed anywhere. Yeah. I mean that that is a l it's not a loophole that's been utilized but it's a loophole that we identified and we might as well close it so nobody does utilize it. I do think the menu items need to be revisited. So definitely time times change and I like the mortorium idea but maybe not for 10 years but maybe for three just because things change and pivot so quickly. So it it wouldn't be too difficult to revisit in a few years if it's possible.

And that also gives you time to see what people want to develop, right? I mean because this is still very conceptual. I mean besides the sheries um there's still a lot that has to happen before Yeah. It's not going to like they're going to come and then develop it within six months or something.

But can you codify a moratorum? Right. Like Well, there there well I think the idea is maybe more of like a revisit it like if we do something um what I was hearing but maybe we heard different things which often happens um but was the idea of like if we do something let's revisit it because times do change and it is a long-term plan and so we want to make sure that if we want to change something we can so um an example so so say like no waiverss allowed for x period I heard

or be revisited. I heard almost the opposite which was if we do but but maybe I others heard differently because I heard um like if we do something like changing there's a maximum or something like that then we can revisit it again like in 10 years revisit it whatever our decision is um I think I was suggesting the opposite and you're okay no no waivers that there would be no waiverss on you know anything above the four to five while we see how it plays That's what George said. Yeah, I think that's what George said. He just said mortorium, but that's how I interpreted it, right? Like like why would you know you could cap it

in theory for a set period of time to see like how is it developing? Is it like our developers all over it? It's building out super fast, everyone's happy. Or it's like, man, this is stalling out because every developer is like, oh, we really need that fifth floor or else it's just not going to work. And so um I think we can go back and listen to it and make sure we got it right and then we also have captured that from all of you. So I think but I think both of them can whatever it is it's the decision we're making today that we want to have revisited right so whatever that decision is um the similarity I can um draw to would be what we did with Coffee Creek

whereby in the adoption of those standards there was um a essentially requirement to staff um that we revisit those standards um and I can't remember I think it It was after it was after so many projects um or 5 years whichever came first. Yeah. It was like five projects or five years. So you didn't codify it, right? So you

basically because it was adopted in an ordinance that said you shall come staff shall return to the council uh with an evaluation. Now it was a evaluate how it's going. Um and that's if you'll recall we went through that process with you about two years ago. Um and we did make some modifications to uh the code to reflect um a few changes that we thought were beneficial based on the projects that had gone through the process. So we could do something similar where it's basically like after this amount of time or this amount of projects.

Yeah. I think the only thing that I would say on moratorium is it has a very specific meaning in state law when you talk about development. So that's that's the only thing is that we need to go back and check about the state laws and what they say they're it's generally around infrastructure um and development around being prohibited because of infrastructure. So we it it might not be that wording but seeing in concept if something like what you're talking about is doable um is something that we can explore and and what and when I say that too is providing that to council and ensuring

kind of alignment because again I would say that's outside the scope of what the resolution called for but if that's if that's the direction that council wants to give to staff that's their prerogative. So it's it's really clear the people don't want to see huge buildings like this building two two stories. Mhm. Right. Yeah. And then we have um there are three story buildings in town in town center currently as well. Yeah. And so I can imagine seven's pretty scary. Yeah. If you have a lot of seven fivetory buildings and our town center is drastically different.

Yeah. I and like I said, outside of the one one task force member, I haven't heard anybody who's involved in contemplating this policy decision say that they're that they're supportive of that type of building.

And I would say that the seven current currently technically only the seven would be able to be achieved in the CMU. So just in terms of like I heard one um some like let's be clear about the language, let's be clear about what's possible. So you'd have um the potential to go to um four, five, um six or seven essentially. So, I just want to make that clear that like you wouldn't be able to go to seven in every subdist and despite like there being this uh discussion around um technically the code says this and there technically we think there's this loophole. I would um say that a lot of that is contemplated like when we're reviewing applications. And so just because it doesn't say like a height limit, it's not like staff would review this and say like, oh, somebody could say 10 stories. We would be looking at it as you have to provide each of these things and that gets you a height. It gets you a story. Um I think we would like I just want to like make it clear that even though there's there is fear and I hear that as well there is fear there's also there are parameters around this where it currently is is probably more limited than some people feel but I also hear that it's not as limited as some people want. So um both are true and I just wanted to kind of give that grounding of what would be technically allowed.

How do we build that trust? Yeah, that we're that not going to happen. And then the the density issue is real, the traffic issue is real, the parking issue is real. Like, how how do all of those get addressed? And so, I think those issues are

um how do I put this out? I I think those fears are real. Um those factors are real and and we need to make sure we're addressing those factors. I don't necessarily believe that. I mean, I'm in the camp of people who believe that uh this kind of density may actually lower traffic um because these are more walkable spaces. We can more efficiently use mass transit in these spaces. You don't have to have a car. Um that won't be the reality for the first several phases of this development though because we are still very much a car car oriented city and we probably will be for a lot of this 40-year duration if not all of it. So, I think it what we're doing here in terms of like the waiver process and even the code around town center um maybe doesn't address all of this, but there may be other things that the city needs to do to be able to mitigate traffic um by providing other ways for people to get around or

and if you had that moratorum that gives you time to see how that develops. Exactly. Does money come in to fix the Boone Bridge? Yeah. For example, since that's always Yeah. the biggest problem for the area or or what else are we doing in the meantime in like Philip for instance where traffic is you know evidently already something that people are thinking about or not sorry not traffic um parking is already something that people are thinking about what what are the things that the city can be doing in the meantime while town center is is you know waiting to be developed or being developed what are the things that the city does to address street parking over there in the other part of the city

and I think part of what can be really challenging with this type of project is it's so limited in scope. Um, and in some ways we start talking about an issue in isolation without all the other context. So just based on what you're saying, there's the vast majority of the town center plan calls for actions in each of those areas. And it does look at infrastructure and it does contemplate how we manage traffic and how we do it better than we do today in light of new development and how we address parking. And there's an entire section on uh parking implementation. And so these are things that um are contemplated in the plan which sometimes get lost when you're just talking about like this little sliver of a thing that's related to it or a part of its code. Um and I did hear some comment tonight about some of those items as well and including things like the phase one through phase three summaries and um if that's helpful for you guys to read. So, as you do think about this, even when you leave here and um especially since we'll be coming back to you, like if you want any of those additional materials to help you, let me know because it can be difficult um when we're just kind of bringing this one little item of a bigger picture.

Yeah. Is there any way to like is there anything that exists that helps visualize those phases and the changes they bring in like visual form instead of written form? some, but it can be hard because I think as you all know, since we don't own the property or we don't own 99% of the property, um it's very hard to know who will sell to who and who will want to do what on their project. Um and so you can we we did put out kind of like one scenario for buildout, but it is just one scenario. Okay. So I if I was to summarize um

thank you Commissioner Carr. I think we would like an option six that is a pause on waiverss that's revisited at a later date. Um, and no ability to have both a bonus and a waiver and was either um the revisiting the way the sheries is zoned.

Correct. And then revisit the so that it's that one little section of the MU West to see if classifying it as a C MU would help eliminate any legal difficulties. The three parcels. So the three parcels maybe building down underground. So um that's science fiction, right? Talking about a pause on waivers. It's not just an increase in building height that this waiver allows. M

so I'm assuming but I want to confirm that decreasing and expanding a floor plate the commission is comfortable with those waivers continuing or are you saying that you want all waivers to pause? That's a very good question. I would say just the height going up going up is consistently what people have a problem with. I don't think anyone would have a problem if you're like actually this one area was going to be like two levels but now it's gonna be one level because we need like housing that was but people are going to be opposed to strip malls. Yeah. I think that's the risk of one levels is that we end up encouraging because you don't want a strip mall right by your residential.

That was the option. So the option five if you remember that they were talking about was not allowing basically a decrease west of Main Street District. So So So closer to I5 that you wouldn't be able to go down in height um was something that the task force on the east side but you could on the east side but you do have like the neighborhood mixed use which is supposed to be town homes I mean you could have in theory a single level town home right if somebody like not in neighborhood use and I don't know that that would be built to be honest based on the market

sure but in theory like if you need disabled accessible homes, you need something that is either one level or you're going to have to have an elevator. So, that could be something that factors in where I don't think anyone would complain about waving down something that is residential. Um I I think some people might and and I think it it comes from we'll complain about everything, right? So,

well, yeah. Well, there's that for sure, but also I think if I understood the the town center plan as it was put together originally, one of the basis for for putting a minimum on the on the building height um and including in the neighborhood mixed use having a minimum of two floors was to was to encourage a little bit more density in our town center. And there's a reason this is being done in the town center zone instead of on, you know, across all of Wilsonville. like this is where if there's density anywhere in the city, this is where it should happen. Um, and to inc to make sure that we're not wasting the the center of our city with low density development, let's put a minimum of two two stories everywhere. Um, I do like the idea of being able to in of of at least the task force considering this possibility of a waiver where you allow certain development to maybe justify why they can why it's why it's it makes sense for them to be a one-story development. Um, but that should be the exception, not the rule. And we should have a pretty high bar for allowing that because we aren't going to get another town center to do higher density in. And once a building is built, like what's the lifespan of a building? how how how soon before we get to redevelop that property or the the owner reasonably gets to redevelop that property into something more dense, you know, is it a hundred years from now? Is it 50 years from now? Like what what's the lifespan of a building? I don't know. Um of a modern building, I guess I should say, because older buildings seem to last forever. So, um, but no, I I I'm and I'm just kind of voicing thought like perspectives that I I believe people in the community do have around the minimum of the building heights as well um for town center. Um but I I agree that I think it's a good thing for the task force to consider this idea of like is there is there

discuss right should the mor if if they like the moratorium idea or whatever we call it since mortorium might be forbidden. Yeah. Is it just going up or is it also going down? Correct. Well and what's the spirit of the mortorium and the floor? Yeah. I think the spirit would be to see like okay what you know what what's wanted what's what's feasible what can be developed

what do things even look like 10 years from now or five years from now since so much things changed very quickly much quicker than maybe they changed like over the past let's go pre-COVID like let's throw co out but you know from like 2019 back to like 2000 yes we had online shopping increased but there maybe weren't as fast of changes as there are now with remote work and hybrid and all those things.

Totally. Yeah. Yeah. I think if it's um so and that's that's why I think that's a really good question and like if the if the rationale behind a moratorum or you know quote unquote moratorum is to just see what developers might come in and do or what the community might see developed in in these areas given the plan as it is then I think it should apply both up and down. We should have a moratorium on up or down. But if the if the goal of the moratorium is to address the fears about high buildings or tall buildings and ultra ultra high densities that goes beyond what we envision with the plan then then we would say well the moratorium only applies to growing height. So what's I mean I think maybe we need to discuss that as a commission like what's our what would be our or maybe that's actually more more just an open question for the task force is like if we apply to moratorum should it be only on on the upscale or should it be on the down scale as well

I don't think any of the citizens mentioned a decrease in height it was all they wanted to limit the the upper height um yeah well this the option five came from the task force though, right? So, somebody in the task force did come up with this idea of decreasing the height of not allowing the decrease. Is that what you mean? What's that? So, the decrease in the building height in the waiver language has is in there for MU and CMU, but what the option five says is that in the area where we're expecting it to be higher, you can't go down to one story. And then the area where we originally called for it to be lower, you can't go up. Yeah.

So, it was this reflection back to essentially the original planning effort and trying to um put the the parameters around the the waiver language that probably should have been there in the beginning, but that we didn't put in because it was being written during a public hearing, but um never advisable uh but sometimes happens. Uh so uh I think that that idea came from a task force member who was really thinking about that whole scale approach um versus it like kind of putting a pause on it. But the original waiver language was born out of the idea of we've gone to we've we we want to keep it at two stories minimum. But in the occasion that we have like Whole Foods with like a little coffee shop in it and it's 35,000 square ft single story instead of 30,000 you know do we want to be able to make that type of an exception?

And the answer to that was yes. Yeah. I mean that's what really drove us to looking at what is the right number. Um and this waiver provision at all combination of the floor plate floor plate and the and the one story right because it felt fairly obvious from the community like if because there wasn't a lot of support for a lot of one-story buildings true

but the type of one-story buildings we wanted to make sure like well so what is the max for a single user retailer and that's when we did all that additional research to figure out Okay, what's the square footage? And then do we want to have some kind of exception process to make sure that especially at the beginning of the planning horizon when it's going to be harder for things to be marketable and developable because the land's not worth as much. Do we want to have some flexibility built into the code to allow the options for development so we can get some development happening? Cuz once you have enough development and your values are higher, then you will continue to see development and you may not need to make as many exceptions or provide that flexibility. And that was really why the planning commission at that time really pushed towards this waiver process. But then you also run the risk of if in early in the development you allow more variances, you're going to have to allow those variances throughout the life of that um project because you will have set a precedent,

right? And I think that's why the parameters at the time were such that it was you have to do these menu you have you have a higher bar than for a waiver anywhere else in the city. Yeah. And maybe that Yeah, those menu items should be revisited too, right? Since those were pre Yeah. COVID menu, maybe the bar needs to be higher. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Does anyone have any We actually got some really good feedback from the task force about different ideas um surrounding the menu options, but if there is and since we are

pretty late into the evening and I can appreciate that your mind's not maybe firing at 100% like mine isn't. Um, if tonight you don't have specific ideas about what could be included in the menu item, but you think about it and especially before Tuesday and you want to share it with me, um, you can also reach out, um, and provide. But if you have ideas about things that you might want to see in a menu item, um, we're we're happy to take that feedback. And if we do end up going the direction, if we get the feedback to revise the menus, um, it will come back to you again. So, I think one thing we'll be getting from the task force is more direction on

the types of things that they want us to develop language for in those menus and um what the bar is that they'd like to see for certain things and then we would be um drafting something up that um when we come back to you at your next work session, you would actually see. So, you you would get another opportunity, but at the same time, if you have like the at the high level ideas, um we would love to have them. Mhm. What page number were those menu items on?

Um, it was on, let me go back to my packet here. It was on page, It starts on page 470 of your packet and into 471. So, like I mentioned, so menu one is getting at what is the community benefit. Um, and menu two is to address the impact of the building size, either larger floor plate or taller. So

menu one is community benefit, menu two is impact. And I think I mean unless planning commission disagrees, I think those two concepts make sense. There might need to be refinement in the menu options to achieve those things. Um

is the lead standard like the um the green building the only one where the standards have changed so much that it's considered now a norm? So, so one of the one of the task force members and I I'm not as familiar with the different certifications, but I believe there are different levels even within those certifications that you can achieve. So, it might be specifying that what level within that certification do you need to achieve that might that is higher than our state building investment required. Yeah, because I remember the commission having that discussion like, well, somebody's going to put out some blue bins or something like that, you know, call it good. I did like silver, gold, platinum, I think different levels and they're expenses for them. Yeah. Okay.

There there are a couple things that come to mind right away. Um for the menus for for menu one, the last option in the menu option five is provision of affordable housing. And since that is another condition for getting a floor, I think we should just not have that as the menu option at all. Um, the other thing that stands out to me in menu one is um, uh, shoot, I might have lost it. Um, oh, what was it? No, my brain's not working at full capacity right now. Maybe it'll come to me and I'll I'll repeat. There was another one though. So, one of the concepts, maybe it because it might inspire some thoughts that the task force talked about that I thought was super helpful was thinking about permanence in the menu items is making sure that the menu items reflect things that have a level of permanence without the city necessarily coming in and making sure that they're operating the way they should be because we're a complaint driven city. That's not how we do enforcement. So it like proactively going and inspecting. So one of the things that they that the task force talked about was around permanence um or relative permanence of some of the menu items. So things like that uh when we talk about kind of high level concepts. Um

I remember what my other one was. Um, and this maybe is a bit of a has a bit of a question couched in it as well, but are there um I I believe there there are guidelines around like what what kinds of retail we want on mixed use. Um, but that has to be built into the building in some cases like a restaurant has to have certain things built into the building in order for a a commercial kitchen to operate in that building. Um, is that something that's that's codified elsewhere in the code for these for for for these buildings or could that be a menu option that that we add for for these kinds of buildings or for these kind of waiverss?

Yeah, I think that is something that we could add. So, the um the zoning the development code does not require certain types of retail and it doesn't require a building to be fitted for like specific types of retail. So, um, and and I know that that has been something that has come up a number of times because it can be very costly to a new tenant to especially put things in like for a restaurant use with the ventilation and the grease traps. And so, um, that is definitely something that we could consider if like there's certain types of retail, which we know restaurants are high up on the list of what people want to see, um, in Town Center. Uh that is something that we could put in there is is ensuring that certain types of you that the the internal space is fitted with cert to accommodate certain types of uses.

Yeah. And restaurants are one that I'm aware of, but I maybe there are other kinds of things like that for other types of businesses that would really matter that we would want to see in in Town Center based on what we've heard from citizens. So, yeah.

And I would note that I think this kind of came back to um a note that Commissioner Candrian was making about like accessibility and um our retail and commercial spaces do have to be um like ADA accessible. And if you have apartments, they do. So, it probably won't be an issue, but like if you had town homes, they wouldn't be. So, um I don't know if there's other things we want to think about in terms of making sure like other benefits where if we're taking out like affordability, is there some other type of um community asset to help um I guess create spaces for everyone in this town center? Could be something for you all to consider. Does anybody have any more? Have we provided enough? We can always send more as we think about this tonight and wake up at 3:00 am with ideas. Go ahead and email me. I'll be awake thinking about it, too. No, I This has been um I know it's a lot to take in, especially because um the time frame that we're operating under is is pretty tight. So, I do appreciate your really thoughtful comments tonight. Um and I think I have just one more slide that is telling you what is coming next. So, like I mentioned, the council work session is on May 18th. So, they'll be provided. Um, our packets were already required to be turned in, but they will be provided in the um presentation with your initial feedback. Then, our task force meeting is May 19th. Um, we are anticipating, as you saw, if you've seen the work plan, some work sessions and potential public hearing on this type topic with planning commission um in the summer and into the fall um and then also with city council. So, more to come. Definitely.

Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I also would like to echo u my gratitude to all of you. Um it's crazy for me to think about the fact that um I think only one of you um sat through this the first time. That's a lot of change on the planning commission in a relatively short period of time. Um I know it wasn't adopted last year, but um still. So, um there's a lot of context here that I know that most of you don't have. So, I really appreciate you diving into it uh the way that you did and if you have any questions or uh feel free to follow up with me. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for all the preparation on your side, too. This has been fantastic. Yeah.

All right. Um it's pretty late, but do we have I don't think we have any public comment here. Anybody on Zoom? Okay.

I will uh skip reading all of this for you. Let's see here. Okay. I don't think you all have any additional uh questions, right? Okay. All right. Okay. Hearing no further discussion. That concludes our work session. And next our agenda was the administrative informationational item. Excuse me. Uh there's no staff presentation on theformational item, but does anybody have any questions about the meeting minutes? Nope.

Okay. All right. Then uh we've completed all schedule agenda items and I will adjourn the meeting. Well done. At 9:12. Did you say at 9:12? All right. I guess maybe my saying is at 9:12 p.m. I don't know if I'm allowed to do it since I'm not the chair.