D R A F T

Exhibit A. Handout – September 23, 2011 copy of the letter and Notice of Decision of the Type III Procedure File No. 11-030 “Troutdale Meadows” and a copy of the Findings of Fact, Final Order and Conditions of Approval for this Case, distributed by Ryan Krueger.

Exhibit B. May 10, 2017 copy of PowerPoint presentation on Case File No. 17-016, 1633-1635 SW 22nd Street.

Exhibit C. May 10, 2017 copy of PowerPoint presentation on Case File No. 17-013, 483 SW Cherry Park Road; also includes copies of public comments received.

MINUTES TROUTDALE PLANNING COMMISSION

Regular Meeting Council Chamber

217 E. Historic Columbia River Highway Troutdale, Oregon 97060

May 17, 2017

1. Roll Call / Pledge of Allegiance – The session was called to order at 7:00 p.m.

Commissioners Present: Corey Brooks, Sandy Glantz, Frank Grande, Jamie Kranz, Shirley Prickett, Tanney Staffenson and Marv Woidyla

Commissioners Absent: None.

Staff: Ryan Krueger, Acting Planning Director Heather Jones, Administrative Specialist

Guests (see list): Paul and Kath Rabe, 477 SW 10th Circle, Troutdale Roger Erickson, 1635 SW 22nd St., Troutdale Claudiu Fabian, 483 SW Cherry Park Rd., Troutdale Valery Masltey, 467 SW Cherry Park Rd., Troutdale Jim Skavaril, 459 SW 10th Circle, Troutdale Sheri Winters, 1526 SW 22nd St., Troutdale Paul Wilcox, Troutdale Citizen Advisory Committee member

2. Approval of Minutes: Corrections were made, as follows:

• December 21, 2016 Regular Meeting. P. 4, second paragraph, correct the typo ‘Mr. Hood’ to read Mt. Hood. Commissioner Prickett moved, with a second by Commissioner Glantz, to approve the minutes as corrected. The vote was unanimous and the corrected minutes were approved.

• January 18, 2017 Regular Meeting. No corrections. Commissioner Woidyla moved, with a second by Commissioner Glantz, to approve the minutes as written. The vote was unanimous and the minutes as written were approved.

• February 15, 2017 Regular Meeting. P. 3, Item 7., fourth line down: correct ‘. . . does not work on a GPS’ to read ‘. . . does not work on a GPS’ certain maps.’ Commissioner Glantz moved, with a second by Commissioner Prickett, to approve the minutes as corrected. The vote was unanimous and the minutes as corrected were approved.

• March 15, 2017 Regular Meeting. P. 5, third paragraph, correct the typo ‘National Association of Hume Builders’ to read ‘National Association of Hume Home Buildings.’ Commissioner Prickett moved, with a second by Commissioner Brooks, to approve the minutes as corrected. The vote was 6-yes 1-abstain (Commissioner Glantz) and the minutes as corrected were approved.

3. Citizen Communication – Non-Agenda Items. None.

D R A F T

Planning Commission Regular Meeting p. 2 of 8 May 17, 2017

4. Public Hearing Procedure. Chair Staffenson read out loud to the audience the public hearing procedure. No Commissioners said he/she have had any ex parte contact, bias or conflict of interest with this case.

5. Public Hearings:

a. Case File No. 17-016 – 1633-35 SW 22nd St. Type III Expansion of a Nonconforming Structure.

Chair Staffenson then opened the public hearing on Case File No. 17-016. Ryan McNaughton presented his PowerPoint presentation (see Exhibit A) and staff report (in the agenda packet), explaining that the structure addressed in this application is a shed which conforms to its use but is nonconforming due to required setbacks. Only one public comment was received in a phone call, asking for clarification, but that individual declined to provide testimony. Staff recommends approval of this application, subject to compliance with the Conditions of Approval as outlined in the Proposed Conditions of Approval. The analysis of this recommendation is that it does remove on-sight non-conformity, allows partition of the property which creates more housing stock for the City; the drawback is that we do consider the possibility that a drawback might be that in granting this variance there may be future increased requests for such variances, but the cost and time associated with these requests by the applicant leaves us a little less inclined to think that will actually be a reality because it is a very high cost as well as a lot of work for the applicant to put these applications together for a Type III, and then come before this Commission.

When we’ve approved nonconforming cases in the past, Commissioner Grande said, we’ve always specified that it isn’t a precedent, and he asked Mr. Krueger if he was saying this is setting a precedent. Mr. Krueger said he is not, and he explained why. He continued his presentation and told the Commission that staff is still operating under the ‘old’ Development Code as the updated Code was submitted for approval after this application was submitted. Hence the Decision Criteria is from the older version of that Code and he reviewed this in more detail and compared the old setback standards with those in the updated Code, at Commissioner Glantz’s request. Mr. Krueger then reviewed the Proposed Conditions of Approval. The Commissioner then asked what the cost was to the applicant on this case, and Mr. Krueger provided that information.

Applicant. Roger Erickson said his residence is 1635 SW 22nd Street and his tenant’s is 1633 SW 22nd Street. Responding to Commission questions, he said the shed was built sometime in the middle of last year (2016) [some of his testimony is inaudible]. This request is for the north side of the property.

Proponent Testimony: None.

Opponent Testimony: None.

Neutral Testimony: Sheri Winters testified that she did not know what non-conforming meant when she read the information sent to her, but her biggest concern was what it meant. Because of staff’s explanation, she has no objection now that she is informed.

Commissioner Grande moved, with a second by Commissioner Prickett, to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous and the hearing was closed.

The Commission briefly talked among themselves (mostly inaudibly), and Commissioner Woidyla said he had heard no arguments against this proposal and the applicant completed and filed the property paperwork. Commissioner Woidyla moved, with a second by Commissioner Grande, to approve the Finding of Facts and Final Order, the Decision Criteria and the Conditions of Approval of Case File No. 17-016. There was no

D R A F T

Planning Commission Regular Meeting p. 3 of 8 May 17, 2017

additional discussion. The vote was unanimous and the motion passed, approving Case File No. 17-016.

b. Case File No. 17-013 – 483 SW Cherry Park Road Type III Variance

Again, Chair Staffenson asked if any Commissioner had any ex parte contact, bias or conflict of interest with this case. Commissioner Kranz said she believes Mr. Rabe was her biology teacher and she thanked him for encouraging his students to help replant Beaver Creek, and she found value in that work. She did not express any conflict with this application. Chair Staffenson then opened the public hearing on Case File No. 17-013.

Mr. Krueger presented his staff report (in the agenda packet) and PowerPoint presentation (Exhibit B). The application is for a variance from front and rear building setback standards in order to construct a single-family residence on the property. There is no development application as yet; this is for the setbacks. He spoke of the Applicable Criteria in the staff report, adding that staff does not offer a formal recommendation on this file and has not drafted the Findings of Fact. As explained in the Recommendations and Guidance, staff will encourage the Commission to draft those consummate to the written and oral testimony provided this evening, and the Commission’s discussion following the close of the hearing.

Early in 2017 the applicant approached the City about the possibility of seeking a variance; material was submitted in March. Due to a 2011 approval of the plat that created the property, any request for reducing setbacks is required to come before this Commission for review and approval. Initially this was a Type II procedure; after our due diligence we determined that it should be escalated to a Type III procedure. All notifications of this public hearing were done. Comments were received from neighboring property owners as well as Public Works and Planning staff. Of these, two comments were in favor of this application, and three letters in opposition were submitted, two of which were from the same individual (see Exhibit C). Any testimony from this evening will be added to those comments for the record.

Mr. Krueger reviewed the Decision Criteria in the staff report which the Commission will need to address. He reiterated that staff has no formal recommendation on this application.

The Commission discussed the 2011 case and decision, and how it related to this application, and Chair Staffenson said, looking at the Commission’s 2011 review, that the setbacks then were 10-feet in the front, 10-feet in the rear, and 20-feet on both sides of the property. Chair Staffenson invited public testimony.

Applicant. Claudiu Fabian is the lot owner. His intent is to build another home on this particular lot; the house next to it (Lot 1) fit the property without seeking a variance; it’s front and back setbacks are each 20-feet, the side setbacks are 10-feet while the footprint on Lot 2 (this application) has front and back setbacks of 10-feet with side setbacks of 20 feet. Lot 2’s rear setback is such that it could not be positioned to accommodate the house he wants to build there without seeking this variance. He described the features of the lot and how difficult it would be to place another residence there without a variance in setbacks. He said he may not need exactly all of the 20-feet as a setback in the back yard, he suggested.

Commissioner Kranz asked if another house would crowd the lot; Mr. Fabian said it would not. Mr. Fabian said he wanted to build exactly the same house as the one on the south lot, but with the current setbacks the backyard would be tiny, and he didn’t think it would fit. There is a shared driveway for all three of these houses, Mr. Krueger said, and this application is for the middle of the three.

D R A F T

Planning Commission Regular Meeting p. 4 of 8 May 17, 2017

????????, an adjacent property owner, inserted a comment (inaudible) and was invited to introduce himself. The Commission discussed the property with both men who clarified what was intended on this property and how the new house will be placed. There was some discussion on the proposed house before Commissioner Grande said they should be discussing the setbacks, not the structure of the house. Commissioner Prickett said they need to discuss the footprint as well as the setbacks. Mr. Fabian said he is now okay with this project.

Proponent Testimony: Valery Masltey testified briefly in support of t his application.

Opponent Testimony: Paul Rabe pointed out his house on a map, and said he’s lived there approximately 33 years. He reiterated his comments in his email to staff (in the agenda packet) that he is not opposed to a home being built but is ‘opposed to one that does not fit the current codes/compliance.’ He does not believe this house can be built to conforming standards. The way it is proposed, its upper windows will directly look into his back yard. The trees there will provide him with no privacy there, and when they’re leafless it becomes worse. Many rooms in his home will have no privacy, and there will be no noise barrier. This is an active area and the photo they were looking at showed illegally parked cars there; the fire lane should have no cars parked on the street but there are cars parked around it and some are left there for days. There’s a travel trailer there currently, which he believes is illegally parked. He said he heard this evening that the proposed new house will, if approved, be a replica of his home which he finds even more invasive. He reiterated the ‘fish bowl’ status of what his house would be, were this approved. He would never buy a house to live in a fish bowl, he said, especially not in an R10 zone.

He was on the City’s Planning Commission when this entire cul de sac was approved, and it’s all zoned R10. He likes having the space and that is why he moved here. It is a low-density residential area. With this proposal, he’ll lose the low-density, residential feel. The zoning was clear when this property was purchased, and the buyer(s) knew exactly what they were buying. If there ever was a plan to do this, Mr. Rabe said that plan was misguided. He also asked where cars would be parked if this new house was built; two cars will fit in the driveway. Also, 10 feet of the swale was given to the applicant (by the City) in order for him to put in a 10-foot tall shed. The peak of that structure extends over the top of Mr. Rabe’s 6-foot fence there. The swale was created to provide impervious surface water runoff, as required; for a number of years it has not maintained very well and he called the City to complain that is was not being upgraded and now some upgrading has occurred. His observations are those of a long-time resident and he is very disappointed that this proposal is even under consideration because the new house just doesn’t fit. The applicant already has stated that he wants this to be a replica of the current house; the new owners will probably have children, which is fine, but there will be more traffic all throughout here. There is no way a yard can go in here, which leads to the issue of where the children will play and, again, what privacy is allowed to him and his family. The applicant spoke of the trees there, and Mr. Rabe said one row of them belong to another neighbor and one to himself; there is no guarantee that those trees will always be there. The foundation of the new house is about 15-feet from the fence, the applicant states; Mr. Rabe said they are about 15-feet from it right now. It’s pretty close. He also said he heard this evening that it is possible to put a covered porch there and have a patio. If you allow him 15’ and 5’, and put a patio there that will be at least 10 feet, now we’re looking at about 5 feet from the property line. With a cover on it, it’s pretty close proximity for an R-10 zone. It just doesn’t seem appropriate, in his opinion.

Regarding the fire lane, if Mr. Rabe’s house were on fire, he said, the fire department would never be able to access the fire lane because there are always too many cars, recreational vehicles, or other things parked there. Add another house and now there will be more cars. He said he is concerned about congestion, about his property’s value, although he doesn’t

D R A F T

Planning Commission Regular Meeting p. 5 of 8 May 17, 2017

plan on living there forever as he is retired. He offered to answer any questions from the Commission. Commissioner Glantz asked him how he felt about maintaining the 20-foot rear setback and allowing a 10-foot variance on the front. Mr. Rabe said he thinks they would run into a problem with a variance on the front if they check with the Fire Department. What if they say it’s okay, she asked. He said he still would not agree with that. Commissioner Grande asked how he would feel about a Condition of Approval that arborvitae or something be planted along the property line. That would be reasonable, Mr. Rabe replied, but the problem is that with a Condition relative to plants, there needs to be City staff to check on compliance because, as he mentioned previously, the swale fell into disarray within two or three months and he had to call to City to complain about it. Staff doesn’t have time to patrol the neighborhoods. He also does not believe it appropriate for the neighbors to be responsible for reporting noncompliant activity on the property. He’s had bad experience with that. When you buy a piece of property you need to know what you’re buying. This lot has been there since 2011. If the property you bought doesn’t meet your needs, then you should buy another property someplace else.

The three lots were discussed as having a Cherry Park Road address, and Mr. Rabe said he does not believe the current house conforms to the standards. It just doesn’t work for existing residents. We’re not talking about specific structures, Commissioner Grande said; all we’re talking about is the footprint. Commissioner Glantz agreed. Mr. Rabe said this will be a big footprint.

Jim Skavaril testified, said he lives on 10th Circle in the house directly in back of the one built. Mr. Rabe went over all the criteria of that, he said, but Mr. Skayaril’s objection is that he attended the 2011 meeting on this where the 20-foot setback was agreed to, and Mr. Skayaril has no problem with that. Now they want to change that and he doesn’t feel that is right, at all, especially with the Criteria and the issues that have been discussed. His main objective is that looking from the fence line (he pointed it out on a map) which would continue straight on back, you can see the distance between that and where they would build the new house, and it’s right in his living room. He agrees with Mr. Rabe about property value, parking, etc. He was okay with the 20-foot setback in 2011 and had no problem with the house being built then. He truly hopes the Commission will consider leaving the 20-foot setback in the back. He could probably live with a 10-foot setback in front, he told Commissioner Glantz, because the most important thing about this to him is the 20-feet in the back. The trees Mr. Rabe mentioned are his trees, and they are getting out of control to where he may need to have them taken out as they are not trimable, and then he’ll have nothing there for privacy.

Kathy Rabe said she was also at the 2011 meeting. At that time the house at the southernmost end toward Cherry Park Road would be facing out to Cherry Park, we were told, so that the back yard of that home would be larger and the sides would be smaller. We were also told that the house at the end would be located differently and he kind of tilted it sideways. At the 2011 meeting we thought we had addressed the front lot already by having it turned in the other direction; it was not. This has turned out to be a heartache. If you allow that same large home, it just compounds the problem that already exists. It’s a small area, it’s tight, it’s congested, it will be noisy and there will be a lot of traffic. It’s hard to keep in compliance with all that as the lots are long and skinny. These were awkward lots and it was known that they were. It’s unfortunate that the big size of the home they want to put there is not accommodated by the size of the lot.

Neutral Testimony: None.

D R A F T

Planning Commission Regular Meeting p. 6 of 8 May 17, 2017

Commissioner Woidyla moved, with a second by Commissioner Glantz, to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous and the hearing was closed.

Discussion. Commissioner Kranz said we are looking at a request to change the footprint in a low density zone to allow more condensed development, and she struggles with that. Commissioner Grande said the Commission should reopen the public hearing as the applicant heard testimony from neighbors but was unable to respond. Commissioner Grande moved, with a second by Commissioner Brooks, to reopen the public hearing for rebuttal. The vote was 5-yes, 2-no (Commissioners Glantz and Kranz), and the motion passed. Chair Staffenson reopened the public hearing.

Mr. Fabian returned to address the comments again (his testimony was almost inaudible). He said he could plant more trees that could grow wild and what will he do then, he asked. With a 10-foot setback in the front and a 15-foot setback in the back, he would be okay with that. Commissioner Grande asked him what he thought of a 20-foot back setback and a 10-foot setback in the front; Mr. Fabian said it would work for him. And the restriction to add some arborvitae or some kind of screening for the neighbors to help give them some privacy, The Commissioner asked. Mr. Fabian asked if he means in the back yard. On the east side, the Commissioner said. Mr. Fabian said he had no problem with that. If these setbacks are not approved, the Commissioner said, he assumed Mr. Fabian would build a higher house. Mr. Fabian said it would be higher and longer. The Commission thanked him.

Jim Skavaril asked to testify again and the Commission allowed it. He said one of the biggest issues is the screening. As he stated, the trees were placed there for screening because in 2011 they were thinking they were going to build. The trees have gotten out of control – they are not good looking which you can see. If they put screening back there and everyone is aware that they are plants you cannot control, and we don’t know how long the screening will be maintained, or die. It’s not a permanent structure. He hopes the Commission does not consider that as a real issue as far as screening because he doesn’t believe that’s a factor of what would cure the problem. If this were approved, he does not believe they have the (sounds like) distance to even plant new screening.

There is no perfect solution, Commissioner Grande said. Chair Staffenson asked if the applicant wished to respond to Mr. Skavaril’s comments or if he was okay not doing so. Mr. Fabian declined a rebuttal.

Commissioner Prickett moved, with a second by Commissioner Glantz, to close the public hearing. The vote was unanimous and the hearing was closed.

Discussion. Commissioner Kranz said this lot was purchased when the setbacks were clear, and she values the neighbors’ concerns. Commissioner Woidyla said he thinks about the question of the neighborhood, the value of the neighborhood and the adjoining property declining. Commissioner Glantz asked of anyone was opposed to the sticking with the 20-foot setback in the rear, and what about the front yard, allowing a variance on that? Commissioner Kranz asked if the Fire Department has to weigh in on that; another Commissioner said that’s a good question. Any Condition we may have, Chair Staffenson said, will have to meet all Gresham Fire’s codes. Commissioner Glantz suggested an option: what if we allow a 20-foot setback in the back and a 20-foot setback on the sides, but a 10-foot setback on the front? She explained why (not fully audible). Regardless of the setbacks, Commissioner Woidyla said, it’s the height of the house. Commissioner Prickett said she does not think the setbacks can be changed from the minimum. Chair Staffenson said he looks at what happened in 2011 and hopes for the applicant’s sake that this was known to them when they purchased the property. It clearly states the 20-foot front and 20-foot rear setbacks. He understands they want and need to fit the right house on the property, and the

D R A F T

Planning Commission Regular Meeting p. 7 of 8 May 17, 2017

marketability of not only that property but the surrounding properties. As a compromise it sounds like we could maybe live with a 10-foot front and maintain the 20-feet on the east side. There was more discussion, mostly inaudible, about what setbacks they could allow. Chair Staffenson asked Mr. Krueger to include a Condition that it’s up to the Planning Department and the Building Department to enforce the Conditions they set, and then post the application as being closed. The Commission discussed Fire Department approval; screening with trees; Code enforcement; the bioswale (who owns and maintains it?) and its continued maintenance being a requirement of the property owner in accordance with applicable City standards and recorded and the 2011 Conditions. Then they discussed the Conditions they felt necessary: Screening in accordance with Section 11.040.G of the Troutdale Development Code (TDC) and the length of the structure on the east property line; a 10-foot setback in the front of the lot (on the west side), a 20-foot rear setback (from the east side), and 10-foot side-yard setbacks (on the north and south sides), using Case File 11-030 language (setbacks shall be measured from the appropriate property lines); vehicle parking and access from the south boundary or a design solution addressing parking requirements; screening the length of the structure on the east side, again according to TDC standards and future site development required to meet the dimensional standards of the underlying zoning district. The Conditions of Approval associated in File 11-030 shall remain in effect with this decision; and for future development – any developer shall be solely responsible for compliance with these Conditions of Approval and the applicable development standards. Based on testimony from neighboring property owners, this variance request is modified to protect adjacent properties. Mr. Krueger confirmed the Findings of Fact and Conditions of Approval the Commission wanted as he will write the final draft of the Findings of Fact and the Conditions of Approval and submit those documents to Chair Staffenson for his signature.

Commissioner Prickett moved, with a second by Commissioner Glantz, to approve the Conditions of Approval as written with the updates, and with the final written draft to be approved by Chair Staffenson. The vote was unanimous and the motion passed.

Commissioner Glantz moved, with a second by Commissioner Kranz, to approve the Findings of Fact as written with minor changes to be made, with the final written draft to be approved by Chair Staffenson. The vote was unanimous and the motion passed.

Commissioner Prickett moved, with a second by Corey Brooks, to amend the above motion to be: approve the Final Order and Findings of Fact with minor changes as amended, with the final written draft to be approved by Chair Staffenson. The vote was unanimous and the motion passed.

6. Department Report. Mr. Krueger shared that Chris Damgen and his wife’s son was born. He also gave updates on the Troutdale Development Code update regarding some items that may need to be revisited, as well as few current upcoming projects, and that a new Assistant Planner position has been approved and staff hopes the position will be filled hopefully in July. Commissioner Glantz has received a card from Metro about some changes made in either April or May, but it doesn’t specify what changes. She asked Mr. Krueger if he knows what they are, and he said no but he will look into it. Chair Staffenson reminded everyone that beginning in either July or August the Planning Commission meetings will take place in the Kellogg Room in the Police Department building on Buxton. Heather Jones is coordinating with them on the Commissions and committees served by the Planning Department. The Commission will be notified when the change occurs.

7. Commissioner Initiatives and Concerns. Commissioner Grande said the Robins Way trail’s split rail fence is partially collapsed, and he asked staff to notify the Parks Department.

D R A F T

Planning Commission Regular Meeting p. 8 of 8 May 17, 2017

8. Adjourn. Commissioner Prickett moved, with a second by Commissioner Glantz, to adjourn. The motion passed unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 9:49 p.m.

Tanney Staffenson, Chair Date

Attest: Rooney Barker, Transcriptionist

CITY OF TROUTDALE PHONE (503) 665-5175 | www.troutdale.info

Staff Report

REPORT DATE: July 12, 2017

HEARING DATE: July 19, 2017

FILE NUMBER / NAME 17-034 O’Malley Fitness

APPLICATION TYPE Type III - Conditional Use Permit

PROJECT APPLICANT Julie & Tim O’Malley PROPERTY OWNER I-84 Corporate Center (Meier 1 LLC)

PROJECT LOCATION 1067 NW Corporate Dr – Bldg G TAX MAP / TAX LOT # 1N3E26A-01312 / R412000600

LAND USE MAP Industrial (I) LAND USE ACTIVITY Commercial Sports Complex

ZONING DISTRICT Light Industrial (LI) OVERLAY DISTRICT N/A

PROPOSAL The Applicant is applying for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a fitness facility at the location. In order for this type of business to operate at the proposed location, the City of Troutdale Planning Commission must approve the application based on decision criteria outlined in the Troutdale Development Code (TDC). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approval with Conditions. See page 3 of this Staff Report and the draft Findings of Fact and Final Order for details. PROJECT LOCATION

Property in Question

CITY OF TROUTDALE | Staff Report

File: 17-034 Report Date: 07/12/17 | Hearing Date: 07/19/17

PRE-HEARING INFORMATION APPLICABLE CRITERIA

Troutdale Development Code (TDC): Ch. 1 Introductory Provisions; Ch. 2 Procedures for Decision Making; Sec. 3.160 Light Industrial (LI); Sec. 6.300 Conditional Use; Ch. 9 Off-Street Parking

City of Troutdale Construction Standards for Public Works Facilities

Multnomah County Road Rules

Appropriate Building and Fire Codes PROCEDURE This application is undergoing a Type III quasi-judicial procedure. [TDC 2.060 and 6.300] This procedure requires a Public Hearing and Planning Commission review in order to be adopted. Planning Commission is the decision-making body for this application and may approve, approve with conditions, or deny this application. Nearby property owners, relevant review entities, and other stakeholders have been notified accordingly. [TDC 2.075 - 2.090] APPLICATION PROCESS A pre-application meeting was held for this application in June 2017. A formal application was submitted and the application deemed to be complete on June 27, 2017. A Notice of Hearing & Land Use Application was sent to affected review entities and nearby property owners within 500 feet of the property in question in early July 2017. REVIEW ENTITY COMMENTS Review entities offered comments during the pre-application meeting. Listed below are the review entities who provided comments during that time. Conditions of approval were proposed by two of the entities and are included in the draft Findings of Fact and Final Order. The Applicant would be required to satisfy those conditions prior to the issuance of a building permit for tenant improvement and/or business license.

Review Entity Comments Review Entity Comments

Planning Yes Gresham Fire & Emergency Services Yes, Conditions

Public Works Yes Multnomah Co. Transportation Yes, Conditions

OTHER COMMENTS

As of the date of this Staff Report, no written testimony from other parties or stakeholders have been received.

CITY OF TROUTDALE | Staff Report

File: 17-034 Report Date: 07/12/17 | Hearing Date: 07/19/17

RECOMMENDATION

For this application, Staff recommends Planning Commission vote for approval with conditions. Staff has prepared a draft Findings of Fact and Final Order document, outlining how the decision criteria for this application were satisfied, along with proposed conditions of approval as outlined by the review entities. Any subsequent approvals from the City shall not be issued until all conditions listed in the attachments are adequately addressed as determined by the appropriate review entity. Planning Commission reserves the right to amend the draft and proposed conditions unless other governing documents or agreements state otherwise.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL [TDC 6.325]

The Planning Commission may attach to an approved conditional use reasonable conditions, restrictions, or safeguards that would uphold the purpose and intent of this section and mitigate any adverse impact upon adjoining properties which may result by reason of the approved conditional use. A list of conditions may include, but is not limited to, the following:

A. Increasing the required lot size or yard dimensions. B. Increasing street width. C. Increasing the number of off-street parking or loading spaces or area. D. Improving public facilities such as:

• Water supply; • Sanitary sewers; • Storm drainage; • Sidewalks, curbs, and other street improvements; and • Fire hydrants.

E. Controlling the location and number of vehicular access points to and from the site. F. Limiting lot coverage or height of buildings. G. Undergrounding of utilities. H. Public safety and crime prevention measures. I. Requiring landscaping, fencing, diking, screening, or berms. J. Limiting the number, size, and location of signs. K. Land dedication or money in lieu of dedication for public purposes. L. Bonds or other suitable security to ensure that requirements are met. M. Submittal of final detailed plans indicating conformance with conditions.