City of Happy Valley

City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2015 Page 1 of 8

City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes Tuesday, June 9, 2015

Commission Members Present: Staff Members Present:

Chair, Prusia Vice Chair, Hartzell Michael Walter, Economic & Community Commissioner, Koblitz Development Director Commissioner, Conrad Justin Popilek, Senior Planner Commissioner, Summers Cheryl Whitehead, Planning Assistant Commissioner, Callahan

Absent – Commissioner Obritschkewitsch

Others Present:

(See attached sign-in sheet)

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Prusia called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. Roll call was taken.

I. CITIZEN COMMENT

None

II. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS

None

III. VAR-01-15 CLASS C VARIANCE FLOOR AREA RATIO

Chair Prusia read the hearing script in to the record. She asked the Commissioners for any Declarations of Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

None Declared.

Chair Prusia asked the audience if there are any challenges to any Commissioners Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

None Challenged.

Public testimony opened at 7:04pm City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2015 Page 2 of 8

Justin Popilek, Senior Planner, gave the following staff report:  This is a Class C Variance  Requesting minimum floor to area ratio  Site located NW corner of 122nd & Sunnyside Rd  Adjacent is the Walgreens to the west is McDonalds, north is single family residents  The whole area around the site is zoned MUC and is varying the minimum standard of .25 to accommodate the building envelope for a retail commercial structure with parking  Contour lines represent steep grades - a very small area is buildable  If variance not applied would require a 10550sf building with 75 parking stall with variance applicant proposes a 4500sf structure with 35 parking stalls  No additional correspondence  Staff recommends approval

Cardno - Thatch Moyer 5415 SW Westgate Dr Beaverton, OR

Mr. Moyer made the following comments:  Restrictions are based on the site topography  Determined the area outside of the steep slopes would build approximately 16,875sf building  The proposed building is 4500sf and meets the FAR requirements  If we meet the current standards would need a parking structure which is not feasible for the site

Chair Prusia continued reading the hearing script into the record. Chair Prusia asked the applicant if they would like to waive the seven (7) days allowed to include additional data to the Planning Commission.

The applicant does wish to waive the seven (7) days.

Public testimony closed at 7:14 p.m.

Vice Chair Hartzell made a motion to approve VAR-01-15 Class C Variance Floor Area Ratio. Commissioner Summers seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, Koblitz, Summers, Conrad & Callahan. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote

IV. HOP-01-15 CHECKERED FLAG ASPHALT PAVING AND SEALCOATING

Chair Prusia read the hearing script in to the record. She asked the Commissioners for any Declarations of Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

None Declared.

Chair Prusia asked the audience if there are any challenges to any Commissioners Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

None Challenged. Public testimony opened at 7:15pm City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2015 Page 3 of 8

Justin Popilek, Senior Planner, gave the following staff report:  The site is approximately six acres  Existing structures are located on the western third of the site  Detached homes to the north and west  The city received noise complaints which resulted in a not permitted business that requires a HOP  Staff has worked with the property owner  The business will need to scale back only allowing for a home office with no customers or employees at the site  Will store some materials at the site  There are only three pieces of commercial items being stored, the rest are for personal use  Staff recommends approval

The Planning Commission made the following comments:  Item four stated they can have up to six people why have this if they are not allowed customers or employees o This was added in case an occasional visit but not for everyday visits o Condition 6 reiterates that the HOP can be revoked if in violation  Are there any proposals for the future in the area – this is a highly buildable area for the future  It is buffered due to lack of density but once development begins this could be an issue  The approval would run with the business with no end date  Holding the applicant to what’s proposed is the key with Code Enforcement review  Trees already exist with a six foot fence on the western boundary

Donald Schott 9747 SE 172nd Happy Valley, OR

Mr. Schott made the following comments:  Was originally told they could store their items  Didn’t realize there was a problem until the neighbors were upset  Have another commercial storage location  No asphalt or products are being stored on site  There are no customers or employees coming to the site  Since the application started we have not had any activity on the site  There are 4 or 5 personal vehicles on the site  There is only a small administrative office on the site  There are no materials or deliveries to the site  Have had the Foster location for approximately five months  Want to be respectful to the neighbors  The business begins at 5:30am

Maurice Schott 9747 SE 172nd Happy Valley, OR

Ms. Schott made the following comments: City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2015 Page 4 of 8

 All work vehicles go to the customer site and the work is done at the customers residential home not on our site

Allen Mackey 12525 SE Scott Creek Ln Happy Valley, OR

Mr. Mackey made the following comments:  Have lived here a long time  Originally parked trucks in the city prior to it being in the city  Urges that the request be denied  The City sued him and forced his business out of the city  This person is doing the same thing and don’t see how this is fair  I am here on principle

John Mahaffy 16800 SE Maple Hill Happy Valley, OR

Mr. Mahaffy made the following comments:  78% of the site is zoned R5 low density housing and all of the industrial business is done in the R5 area  Can only take their word that there are no employees other than those living there  Have taken pictures and there is a lot of materials being stored  There is a lot of noise from the site  Reviewed the questionnaire and do not feel that it was answered accurately  The equipment is visible to neighbors  Would this be allowed in the heart of the valley  This will open Pandora’s box by approving this  Mr. Mackey has a pre-existing business and then run out on his rails – this was not a pre-existing business  Submitted written comments into the record showing several pictures of the site  There is less equipment now than when they started the business but still hear trucks starting up  There are tall florescent lights on the site

Larry Peterson 17032 SE Maple Hill Ln Happy Valley, OR

Mr. Peterson made the following comments:  Live at the bottom of the site’s driveway  Have experienced a lot of loud motors but seems it has tailed off  Our bedroom is 118ft from the driveway it is hard not to hear the vehicles  It is important to set a precedent

City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2015 Page 5 of 8

Donald Schott 9747 SE 172nd Happy Valley, OR

Mr. Schott made the following comments:  Mr. Mahaffy had to use a ladder to take these pictures – there is an 8ft fence between the properties  We didn’t put the lights in  No one can see their backyard  The dirt that is dumped there are from other jobs – it’s clean fill that they use to level off the property  They rent the property from the church – the church stores the bus and cargo trailer half of their stuff is in the 40ft container but they plan to move everything off of the site  Once the equipment is sold then will only be used as a residence with personal vehicles and a home office  The applicant understands the concerns but they don’t complain when the neighbors are using power washers etc.at 6:30am  If it were up to the neighbors they would require that they walk down their driveway and not drive at all

Justin Popilek, Senior Planner, made the following comments:  Mr. Mahaffy was quoting from the home office code, which states no evidence of a business can exist, which is not what we are doing tonight  A HOP can have up to six customers, sign and may store materials if screen from public view  This came to the city’s attention through two resident complaints  The pictures shown by Mr Mahaffy were at the beginning significant changes have occurred since then  If the business ceased to exist but the equipment remained then that would be a violation

The applicant does wish to waive the seven (7) days.

Public testimony closed at 8:12 p.m.

The commission made the following comments:  The reason for the HOP is because of the stored equipment and materials  The applicant could have even more activity if they wanted to such as employees  It’s important to make things easier for businesses but also need to be a good neighbor – maybe talk to church about the lighting  It is allowed to store commercial vehicles and materials with a HOP  Would hate to have the applicant forgo the HOP and then need it in three months  If applicant removes the commercial vehicles then no HOP is required  The applicant has spent a lot of time, money and effort on this application could he be recouped any of the money o No, the fee has been spent on staff time  The criteria has been met for the HOP City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2015 Page 6 of 8

Vice Chair Hartzell made a motion to deny HOP-01-15 Checkered Flag Asphalt Paving and Sealcoting. Commissioner Callahan seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, & Callahan. Nays from Koblitz, Summers & Conrad. The motion is denied due to lack of a majority.

The following comments were made:  If denying an application need to show which criteria or code section the applicant has failed to meet  Could approve with conditions to meet the limits they want  City Attorney stated that the commission cannot rely on purpose statements to deny or approve as proposed since they are not approval criteria  Suggest limiting commercial vehicles to two and no material storage  It is hard to believe that this would be allowed in a residential area  There are other HOP in the city so they are not setting a precedence  It ultimately comes down to code enforcement enforcing the regulations of the code  The code is in place so if this is an issue then would need to change the code

Chair Prusia made a motion to approve HOP-01-15 Checkered Flag Asphalt Paving and Seal Coating as amended. Vice Chair Hartzell seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, & Callahan. Nays from Commissioners Koblitz & Conrad. Commissioner Summers abstained from the vote. The motion was passed with a 3 to 2 vote.

Break at 8:35pm

Resumed at 8:38pm

IV, CPA-05-15 CITY INITIATED LEGISLATIVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP/ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS

Chair Prusia read the hearing script in to the record. She asked the Commissioners for any Declarations of Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

None Declared.

Chair Prusia asked the audience if there are any challenges to any Commissioners Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

None Challenged.

Justin Popilek, Senior Planner, gave the following staff report:  This is initiated by the City to apply city zoning to properties annexed in 2012 but was effective March 7, 2015 since don’t require owners consent  Applying urban zoning located though out the city  Each property is identified with the existing and the proposed zoning on the spreadsheet per the city’s overall comprehensive plan which are vetted zones  Have met all applicable criteria  Staff recommends approval to the City Council City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2015 Page 7 of 8

Commission and staff made the following comments:  Did anyone oppose this in 2012 – yes but not as many as one would think

Public testimony opened at 8:40pm

Public testimony closed at 8:40pm

Vice Chair Hartzell made a motion to approve CPA-05-15 City Initiated Legislative Comprehensive Plan Map/Zoning Map Amendments. Commissioner Summers seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, Koblitz, Summers, Conrad & Callahan. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.

IV, LDC-02-15 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE ADMINISTRATIVE AMENDMENTS

Public testimony opened at 8:45pm

Michael Walter, Economic & Community Development Director, gave the following staff report:  The wireless language was tabled from the last meeting to include the comments given from Michael Connors  This is version C for some of the recommendations  Showed a copy of the most mature version of the document  The city attorney accepted most but not all of Mr. Conner’s suggestions  City Attorney Chris Crean stated that the redlines were reviewed and exercised discretion on some and accepted the ones that worked  How were the dimensional standards determined o Not sure, will have to track down earlier versions o The document originally started from the City of Salem using their wireless communication language that they drafted and the dimensional standards may have come from that document

Mike Conners 520 SW Yamhill Portland, OR 97204

Mr. Conner’s made the following comments:  Largely support the amendments  Would like additional consideration to the items listed in his letter  Participated in the workshops  Request an exception for co-location height  Request use different height requirements depending on the antenna height for small cell facilities  Stealth requirements for blending in  Summarized the points in the letter of substance issues  In an emergency situation wireless is a lot of times the only communications available

Michael Walter made the following comments:  The commission can approve, approve as amended or continue to the next meeting  Recommend continuing to work on the next version and continue the hearing City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes June 9, 2015 Page 8 of 8

 Need to continue to work on the stealth requirements and small cell facilities

Commissioner Summers made a motion to continue LDC-02-15 Land Development Code Administrative Amendments to another date. Vice Chair Hartzell seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, Koblitz, Summers, Conrad & Callahan. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.

IV, COMMISSIONERS CONCERNS AND COMMENT

None

V. ADJOURNMENT

Commissioner Summers made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chair Prusia seconded the motion.

Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, Koblitz, Summers, Conrad & Callahan. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.

Prepared and submitted by:

Cheryl Whitehead Planning Assistant

These minutes were approved at the September 29 2015 Planning Commission Meeting.