I think it might just be a question.

Welcome.

I'd like to call to order this work session of the Force Grove City Council.

There will be no public comment taken.

All counselors are here.

Counselor Council President Valenzuela is joining us on Zoom.

The rest of us are in the auditorium.

We have city staff present and a few community members.

At this point, I would like to turn it over to Jesse for some opening remarks, and then he will turn it over to community development.

Right.

Thanks, Mayor, members of the council.

So we have hour an hour and 15 minutes for tonight's work session.

Just a couple things.

The work session is actually broken up into five distinct sections.

And so I think the thought was is to go through each section.

We do want to make sure the council feels as though you have ample time.

Next section.

So with that, I'd like to turn it over to Brian Pohl, Community Development Director, and Matt Johnson, Senior Planner, and I think we'll go from there.

Any questions for me to start off with?

Okay.

Thanks, Jesse.

Matt Johnson here, senior planner, community development.

Today we're going to discuss in this work session some proposed development code revisions.

Next slide, please.

So our agenda today will be the purpose and background and then the five areas that we'll discuss as Jesse mentioned industrial standards, residential standards, non-residential uses, non-residential standards, and mandatory adjustments.

All right, so our purpose today is to seek feedback and direction for these proposed code revisions.

The development code, what it is, it's a set of elect uh regulations and standards that control how land is used and developed within the city.

Um so it's good practice to re-examine local standards uh periodically so we can support the community's long-term visions and goals uh through thoughtful and sustainable development that ultimately reflects the vision and priorities identified by our residents.

Um this department maintains a living document uh with lists of potential changes and revisions that we see that need to come forward to be revised or at least discussed and to be considered considered annually.

Next slide, please.

All right, so how this aligns with our 2040 vision plan.

Uh so within the plan, as you're aware, there's it's goals and actions.

Um these are the ones that are going to be related to the ones that we're discussing today.

Community growth, uh, increasing supply of diverse and affordable housing options.

Um those actions include addressing rent burden in the community by expanding opportunities for affordable housing and develop policies and programs that allow for greater ADU flexibility, uh as well as the goal of increasing economic growth, create a balance and diversity diversified economy comprised of a variety of commercial and industrial businesses offering high-paying job opportunities.

Um actions include increasing volume and a diversity of commercial development and increasing industrial business.

How we got here today, the planning commission initially held a work session to discuss these code amendments on September 15th.

On December 15th of last year, planning commission voted unanimously to recommend these code amendments to the city council for approval.

Um and here's the timeline where we're on today.

Uh a work session on today, the 12th, and um shooting for a single and final hearing at the end of all right.

So on to industrial standards.

Uh so we're going to discuss changes to building setbacks and building height.

Uh so this is in response staff received direction to revise and revisit the current industrial standards.

Next slide.

Yeah, thank you.

This is perfect.

These are our current industrial standards.

We have three industrial zones.

We have light industrial, general industrial, and business industrial part.

Um currently light industrial and general industrial do not have uh any regulations regarding setbacks, uh, nor does it have any regulation in terms of maximum height.

So what we did is we we looked at surrounding cities and neighboring cities in Washington County with more established industrial uses.

So here are the cities that we looked at.

So Cornelius, Hillsborough, and Beaverton.

There's our current standards on the far right.

So the city of Cornelius requires a 20-foot setback front setback from the street.

They allow zero setback from the rear and from the sides, except when abutting a residential use.

So how were they able to do specific requirements for like Nike?

Because you said there was these are the general rules, but for some right.

So tailoring a unique zoning for those larger industrial land developments versus a large vacant site.

So that's how those conversations came to the table.

Thank you.

All right, moving on.

This is great, thank you.

So this is exactly what we just went through with the addition of our proposal.

So again, staff believes that this is a middle ground between our our neighboring cities here in Washington County.

Staff is proposing 10 foot setbacks on the street, a minimum rear setback of 10 feet and a minimum side setback of 10 feet.

However, when either your side or rear uh butts a residential zone, I want to clarify that this is important that it's a residential zone and not a use for the purpose of industrial development.

But again, we're proposing that 50 foot when abutting a residential zone.

And we want to propose the maximum building height of 40 feet tall with that provision to allow an increase in height with every additional foot setback.

So if you're set back 20 feet versus the 10-foot, you're gonna be allowed 55-foot tall building.

And we can go to one more slide just so we can see the close.

This is this is how the code will read.

Um essentially what we just discussed in that table.

And I'm happy to invite any questions or discussion for the industrial counselor Falkner.

You might need to turn on your microphone, I think.

I made a lot of notes and I'm happy to just email them to you.

Um, but I just wanted to so what I mean I understand how we got here and why.

Um, you know, I was on planning commission and then council, so I I was I I had the unique s position of being in both hearings um when all of this sort of came up.

Um I don't think I would characterize these as light changes.

I think they're actually pretty significant changes from the current the status quo.

Um and so a lot of my concerns, you know, sort of might might be coming from that position.

Um the you know, the community concerns that I recall, um, and kind of going through this process were about the parcels, you know, the development potential directly adjacent to an abutting uh residential zones.

That's that's pretty much what I mean.

That that was the vast majority of comments that we heard.

Um and so I guess, you know, sort of big picture, you know, I'm understanding the the changes the proposed changes when abutting residential use.

I'm not so sure I'm understanding why we're taking such an over correction for all of our industrial areas.

And so just sort of like big picture a couple of notes about why I'm thinking this way.

Um we're not Beaverton, we're not Hillsboro, and in a lot of ways we're not Cornelius either.

Um, you know, our stated goal where you started was that we're, you know, our our our community has told us we need more jobs.

We need to and t we need to den we need to intensify the industrial uses on these lands.

Um and I don't know what Cornelius' goals are, but any restrictions that we're imposing on these lands then makes it more and m less likely that we'll see the type of development that we hoped to see to create jobs.

Um and when I say we're not Beaverton and Hillsboro, what I'm what I'm specifically referring to is the lack of land.

We are a community that has very few acres as come when you compared us to Beaverton and Hillsboro.

Um I mean, they have hundreds more acres than we have.

And so that sort of sprawling uh development requirements that they impose are are unique to them.

They're that's that's sort of their privilege and and their you know that's that's kind of how they do, right?

They're big, they're always, you know, and they're they're kind of usually asking the state for more land.

Um that's not us.

Forest Grove loves its farm farmland.

We hear from residents all the time.

Protect that, you know, I mean, protect that UGB.

And so in my mind, you know, it's not in my mind.

The reality is you can grow up or you can grow out.

Those are your options.

Um I really would like us to sort of have a deeper conversation about why we're considering imposing more restrictions on areas that already are encumbered quite a bit.

And when I when I'm t when I say that, I mean a lot of these parcels are small.

If you look at actually the next slide is more helpful, the where we where we end up.

We've already got minimum lot sizes.

We've already got you know, some uh building coverage and landscaping, which I'll say on the building on the landscaping and the coverage, I'm that that makes me happy.

It's very practical when you combine it with our code, not having restrictions like setbacks and height requirements.

It becomes impractical, impractical when you cumulatively add all those things up.

We have a lot of parcels.

This map is sort of helpful, but I found the one online to be more helpful because you can see that a lot of these zones that are impacted by these proposed changes involve a lot of really tiny small parcels.

And so we've got we're precluding potential small local businesses from developing already because of some of the requirements that we already have in place, and now we're putting additional ones on top of them.

So I'm really concerned about this.

And I'd have some proposed suggestions.

Um, but I just wanted to sort of state my why and not dominate any more because I've said a lot.

Do you want to share your proposed suggestions?

I would love to hear from other counselors if they have any reaction to that, um, sort of big picture.

Counselor Shimmel.

Sorry.

Well, well, I would concur and just only clarify if in terms of what we're changing we're proposing.

We're obviously trying to correct a perceived error uh for from uh a current project, but any anything that we're correcting, well anything we're correcting is be able to articulate why and given the you know previously they they weren't able to foresee a data center here.

You know, I guess we're we're looking to the department to foresee something and articulate why we need to make a change now to anticipate that because it we we we know it's too late once they submit an application, so it's just articulating the why, um, whether it's you know a current dilemma or uh a future opportunity or an anticipated impact.

But I I definitely concur with the uh you know, let's make sure we're uh we're we're doing it in a way that um sort of activates the economic development where we want.

Oh I'm sorry.

Um question about the the three cities is uh other than the data, were you able to interview them about prospective changes they're making because of the consequence of the current statutes?

We were not uh interviewing them about what they're experiencing with their current code and whether they're seeing consequences of the what's what's on code right now that they won't might want to change.

No, okay before I ask for additional comments.

Did you want to respond to why there was the changes in the areas not um a budding residential?

I've heard that twice now.

Yeah, so I mean I I guess I'll speak here.

I mean, point well taken about you know adding setbacks and encumbering property further.

Um I I would say that staff is certainly not married to any of this.

Um what we had heard was you know, just for instance, and and I and I I hate to ever kind of go here with with this conversation because I mean I don't like to dabble in the sort of ridiculous.

Um right now we're 10 feet apart, right?

About 10.

Uh but if even if you're an industrial neighbor and not uh a residential neighbor, you could have somebody build up right up to the property line and build 200 feet under what we have right now.

I say that agnostic that could be okay, that could not be okay.

Um we had the sense in sort of talking uh with ourselves and with you know what we saw in the community and stuff like that, that uh that was seen as a problem.

Um for whatever it's worth, you know.

I mean, you you build a building to the property line, you know, and then you have things like easements and things that we worked out for maintenance and stuff like that, you know.

You gotta paint that building that's over to the property line, you know, a 10-foot setback was sort of a starting point for here's what's what might be reasonable, you know.

And again, by no means are we married to a 10-foot setback, by no means are we married to a setback at all.

Um that's the reality of our code today is that we have there's no limitation whatsoever.

Um did we hit the right spot with it?

I don't know.

I mean, I I think we hit what I thought was a pretty reasonable spot.

Um this went to the planning commission.

I thought there was no real kind of pushback there, but understood what you're saying.

That's not to say that I'm even arguing what you're saying.

I'm just that's just saying that that's sort of like a beginning point for the discussion and kind of where it went with the planning commission.

And again, we're we're open to changing other comments.

Counselor Martinez.

Yeah, sounds on okay.

So I know when I first saw the numbers, I thought that was pretty good, just because if I live next to a building like that, I wouldn't want to be 10, 20 feet away from it.

Um, but I don't know what our parcel sizes are.

We don't know what kind of buildings potentially could be in there.

We don't want another situation with the Crane Data Center, like we've had now, where it's so close to the residents.

So that's just not so I would like to hear what you have.

Go ahead, counselor Gusin.

Um, can you flip back to the previous slide?

I think these are really hot.

Maybe turn them down a little bit.

That might help.

Because this is a really hot mic.

No, like hot loud.

Sorry, it's hot.

Um, it's very, very hot.

So I um I'm all for setbacks only because of what the community has said.

So definitely with um, I don't want a situation where there's no setbacks at all.

So I would prefer setbacks and the from the street, of course.

Um, there should be amount of I don't know what it would be 10 feet, 15 feet, 20 feet.

Um, but I'm for the setbacks, although of course I still want to hear what your ideas are, because I'm sure there's some awesome ones.

But then another question would be um with the additional setback, you get you know, extra height.

What's the cap on that?

SAP is not imposing a cap on that at this point.

I mean, it would naturally cap out somehow, you know.

If you have a 500 foot wide property that's 200 feet from each side or whatever, so you know there's but what that does is kind of reinforces a proportionality to the site uh and sort of uh uh uh puts puts that building, a tall building, at least sort of more naturally towards the center of a site, if you will, rather than pushed up towards the edge, and in one of these scenarios we're talking about where you know you could build the the 200 foot building of the property line.

That that's sort of the idea is that you know, the more you encumber the airspace, the more you push back and sort of reduce reduce that encumbrance.

Um there could we we talked about on staff having a a cap out height, um but I thought there, I mean, I think we all have thought there could be more intended consequences with doing that.

Would be the danger of just leaving it open and sort of letting the proportionality of the site versus the building kind of tapped up was there.

Um I'm curious to what counselor Falconer has to say because I think she and I might be on the same page with this.

I know that a lot of um businesses on the outskirts of towns that actually have or in the industrial area are concerned if you put these limitations on it, it's gonna drop their property value because they're gonna be limited on what they can actually do or what they can sell for because it's gonna limit on who will come in.

So I know that I've heard that from a number of those businesses on the outskirts in that industrial area.

So that's why I kind of want to hear what you had to say.

Yeah, and I'll just respond to that just real quick.

I'm sorry, I'm not trying to steal the show here.

Um I think that we we heard those concerns from a few people uh who called in.

Um whatever it's worth, uh there was no testing with the planning commission about that.

Um although we heard the concerns, we kind of talked people through it and kind of when we got to the end of the tour talking with people.

There, you know, I think we mostly have people who are don't love it, but okay, you know.

Um there is something kind of important to kind of kind of suss out a little bit too when when we're talking about so I think I think we had already kind of addressed the I think we're we're reinforcing the separation from residential residential income.

There's already kind of some stuff in the code for that.

Uh, but we're adding a couple things in there.

Um other industrial.

I mean, when you have a building, you know, if your neighbor builds to the property line, then that actually encumbers your property more because you then you know, if if you want to push closer to that building, building codes will arrange that such that it becomes more expensive to to build that property line or just do separation of unlike uses uh in the building code, you won't be able to build your building to that property.

And so the the a setback, I'm not gonna say the tent with setback.

A setback would be a way kind of evening that playing field to kind of say you know, you both sit back in the property line now, and so you don't have that opportunity for one property owner to usurp the other property owners' rights, if you will.

So again, I mean, what's the right number?

If there's a number, I don't know.

I mean, we have operated with this code for a long time too.

Yeah, we have not really had any issues.

Yeah, and I would say that we've operated with this code a long time and we haven't been able to draw in dust industry in a town.

And so, you know, one of the many things that keeps me up at night as the mayor of Forest Grove is financial sustainability as a city.

And the best approach is in industrial development.

Like that's the most important thing I think we're gonna need to do with our economic strategic plan is really figure out how we're going to incentivize and bring people in and market forest grove.

Whether that's an industrial URA, whatever it is, we need to start exploring this.

And you know, to kind of circle back, you know, I have to remind myself a lot not to be reactionary when making policy.

And so we had a big project come through.

Data cranes, you know, we had a lot of public testimony.

It was really emotional.

And I think that if we address the residential industrial zone things, that's being responsible.

But if we take it outside of that scope, I think it's irresponsible.

And you know, my recollection, and anyone can remind me, but it was the height because of residential and then water and electricity.

And we know that we, you know, light and power's done their work and we've addressed these things.

And so it's important that we don't overreach and say, oh, there's a concern about this one thing.

Now we're gonna put all these regulations.

And I think that's just balanced um balanced work.

Okay, and then I'm gonna pass it to back to counselor Falconer.

Yeah, I think um I that's how I remember it as well, that the concerns were about, you know, the industrial areas adjacent to the residential areas.

And I I wanna there's a couple of places where I think we we refer to um it will get to this a little bit later too, but the other thing I'm sort of taking issue with is residential use.

Um I'd like it to be zone.

So because I think that it's really important to recognize that we have some non-conforming uses in our industrial areas, and I don't think it's appropriate to make to codif essentially codify that.

Um that's and that's what we would be doing if we if we did this.

So I think it's you know that zoning change happened 40 years ago, right?

A long time ago.

So there've been some existing non-conforming uses.

And I also just sort of um, and they're not all necessarily adjacent to residential zones either.

So I think it's really important.

I think that's really important.

I would rather it say residential zone.

Yeah.

Um, so my my thoughts are essentially to, you know, to strike the changes, um, except for where it's where we're dealing with a budding residential zone.

I think it's entirely appropriate.

I think it's responsive to the community concerns to apply the setbacks and the height restrictions to parcels that are adjacent to residential zones.

I think it is a severe overcorrection to blanket apply those changes to all of our industrial areas, which is what I think this proposal is.

I'd also love to see, I don't think we need to necessarily do it, you know, in this code change.

I think we can deal with it.

I think we're, you know, we we are going to do the economic, I think I hope we're gonna do economic strategic, you know, strategic work.

I think we'll get into more of this community conversation, you know, in the comp plan update.

Um, but I eventually I'd love to see us, you know, sort of deal with the minimum lot size issues.

Um, because I think, like I said, I think some of those smaller parcels where maybe you could see somebody doing like um, you know, you could you could see someone like brewing micro brews or you know, some other like you know, some other industrial type use on a small lot, you know, someone who doesn't have a watch my language, a whole lot of capital to do like a massive development project, but those are jobs, you know, small businesses create jobs too.

So I'd love to see us address that.

Um, but that's my that's that's my suggestion.

I don't think it's really all that radical.

I think it's just you know, you strike through the setbacks um and the height restrictions, except for when they're adjacent to the residential zones.

Jesse, you want to say something?

I can tell.

So counselor, wow, you're right.

That is not like Counselor Falconer, just to make sure that that uh I understand.

So the the top one would be zero, then uh the 10 would go away, the minimum rear setback would still be 50 feet, but would be from a residential zone, not a use, correct?

And the 10 feet would go away from the minimum side setback, that again would be 50 feet from a residential zone, but the 10 feet would not apply.

And then there wouldn't there would not be a maximum building height.

Is that correct?

I just wanted to make sure I understood what you were suggesting.

Maximum building height would I was suggesting no, I was saying maximum building height would apply when a budding residential zone.

When a budding residential zone, okay.

Got it.

I also just want to real quick respond to a couple of things.

Um Brian, you mentioned, you know, a 200 foot building.

I think that's really unlikely.

Um because it also has to pencil out for someone who's building a building.

Um but you know, we we can I mean, I'm not also not saying that like we shouldn't entertain some kind of a cap.

Um but the but the idea that you are encumbering you know, your neighbor's parcel.

I I guess I would push back a little bit on that from you know, what I mean, we see the development happen all the time.

I mean, there's sky crepes skyscrapers that get built downtown that are literally share walls, you know.

I mean, so I don't think that that's quite true.

I mean, yes, it makes it more difficult.

I don't think it actually makes it impossible for and you see in it in established industrial zones, you know, in sort of the older um parts of of the metro area where you've got in you know, separate industrial facilities working side by side, and you know, they didn't have setbacks.

And and I would also just say, like, you know, you drive a few miles down the road and there's a 100 foot tall grain elevator in Carlton.

Um, and it actually fits quite neatly and quaintly in a residential area.

So I would also just sort of push back against this idea that you know, all tall buildings are bad because I've lived in them, I've lived directly next to them, I've lived among them, and I don't necessarily share that conclusion.

Is it okay with staff if we kind of chew on this and work out the consensus on this before moving on?

Okay.

So there's proposal by Councillor Falkner that we eliminate the setbacks except and building height except for adjacent or abutting a residential zone.

And I've heard some feelings about it, but let's just do like a pulse point.

Is there any agreement for that?

Does anyone agree with that?

I see Counselor Shim will agree with it.

Falkner, Marshall, and I agree with it too.

So there's four Oh, sorry.

Counselor Council President Valenzuela, I'm so sorry.

Go ahead.

Uh sorry.

Yes, no, I had raised my hand before.

Um yeah, so um I concur in some ways, but I do remember the data center issues that we had and how the community did speak up and the height was one of the problems.

Um so I do agree that we need to think about this a little bit more.

Um, you know, we I do uh concur with um with counselor uh Falconer and Counselor Schimmel.

Um, but I also agree that we need to think about this a little bit more because uh you know, we all have different um uh reactions, different perspectives if someone comes to build, you know, uh something uh close to our home uh for many reasons, and as we remember, there were many concerns about this.

Um so let's I I think we should you know to add a little bit more.

I I agree with council president.

Um I think I need a a little bit more time to think about it.

I'm still um for the 10 foot from the street um for the front setback, and I still would like to talk about uh a cap for the height, because I I know that the 200 height building is you know not likely, but I don't like to be surprised when all of a sudden somebody wants to build a 200-foot building and there's nothing we can do to stop it, you know.

So I'd like to see a cap.

I don't know what that would be.

Counselor Schimmel.

Well, just circling back to maybe summarize what I said before, what's what crystallizes for me from Councillor Falconer's proposals is uh just a rationalization of any change, a clear rationalization of of any change and the verb and ensuring that the verbiage is uh correct in terms of zoning versus use.

Uh and uh a clear alignment with the the goal and objective in terms of uh economic development.

Uh and also when we reference outside cities, I I would appeal for an interview with those uh cities to understand you know what their experiences with their current code and what they might be considering or what have been the consequences or what or if you look especially well, I guess they're all used to here, but what what is emerging for them that might provoke changes that it might creep out here, you know, like the data center is a good example.

We probably could have foreseen that um and got ahead of it.

So you know, I want to make sure that and that could be the rationalization as you're you're either it's a you know there may be multiple situations, you're codifying what state tells you you're responding to what's our what's happening now, and you're you're trying to foresee what uh could happen that that we actually want in 2040.

I guess one you know, um one thought I'm having too is if part of our provision with height is so if you start at zero, then you just move a foot back to go 40.

I mean I don't know, I'm trying to so where we are right now.

I want to respect, and I'm and I apologize, council president Valenzuela.

Uh I'm gonna have to reassociate myself with Zoom, like a hybrid meeting, so I apologize.

Um we can so can we come back to we have some sort of consensus, but think about it, and then I don't think we're gonna get through the whole presentation.

We'll see.

We're either come back to it later to this evening or at our next work session.

Okay, we can go into the next section.

Is that fine with everyone else?

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

All right, uh moving on, residential standards.

So we'll talk about the addition of comprehensive plan target densities, uh, the revision, uh the the revised definition of our current definition for building height, uh provisions to ADU standards, clarification of townhome setback requirements, a clarification of historic review garage standards, and an additional statement added to a section about type of restrictions, uh C and R.

Next slide, please.

All right.

So these comprehensive plan target densities are being added back into the list of residential zones that are currently described under our development code.

So the intent of this is to provide clarification on target densities.

It's often our department um gets calls and says that I'm looking at this tract of land, it's on this.

How many units can I get obviously we're not gonna know exactly based on the amount of infrastructure required to service it, landscaping, all those things.

That's for uh a designer, uh engineer architect to figure out the deep depths.

But in terms of initial analysis of the property, this is helpful for um folks looking to develop within growth.

Um we initially took these out when putting in the middle housing components, as you can see, all of these are the the first three lists of residential zones that were exclusively single family prior to the middle housing rules.

Um we added those in there.

Turns out the urban growth management functional plan through Metro actually requires cities to have these densities within.

Um this is us placing those back in to be in compliance.

Um these target densities are essentially minimums if you take the minimum lot sizes and develop them with single family detached homes, one unit for each minimum lot.

These are the numbers that you will see um per you want to do questions about that now, or should I rip through the next few and then I think you can rip through the next are there questions about that?

I'm gonna have questions.

I'm gonna have questions.

I don't I don't think you thought we were dealing with them individually.

So I do have questions.

Yeah, so we can keep moving.

Is that except a pen on I don't have notes for tonight because I don't think it's worth I think it I think this this whole list um probably should be readdressed when we get into big comp plan and and maybe some additional and so I'm just kind of putting a thumbtack there, but I don't have any changes today.

Moving on to residential building height.

So currently this is um very difficult to describe when uh when someone is inquiring about their maximum building height.

Um so what this is, this is a um uh currently our regulations within residential zones.

Our code does not define the size of stories.

Um what it means currently is that both apply, but the stricter one will be applied.

So if it's only two stories, you can't exceed 35 feet.

If it's under 35 feet, you can't see you can't be three stories, you can only be two and a half.

Again, our code does not define what a story is.

Um typically in building code for a residential property, residential home, um, that's that can be about 10 feet basically after your finished floor and finished ceiling.

Um typically at eight feet in between.

Um, you know, what that looks like in terms of design, um, you know, how pitched is your roof, uh, is it flat?

Um staff sees this as a constraint to design and housing.

Um really it should just be a flat um feat um regardless of stories.

The visual impact uh is virtually the same.

Um the use will continue to be whether it's a duplex, it's still only two units, whether it's a single family attached, single family two thatch, still one unit, um all of the height will remain the same.

If I can also with that provision, um we also two and a half stories or 35 feet introduces a certain level of ambiguity that we're supposed to have any ambiguity in our residential zones as far as what can and can't be built.

Um that's another issue there.

So I see nodding along with I was a little bit worried about this one, but I think we're all agree with that.

Yeah, basically, cool.

Okay, and then just below that, there was another one that we just saw as um unnecessarily restrictive.

So, in terms of town homes, uh referring to the yard setback, um, so attached single family town homes, row homes, what have you.

Um, the it's another and or the the town currently the code reads it shall be a minimum of um five feet from the sides, zero feet from the firewalls, obviously, um, or one foot from the side of for each three foot of building height at the eat line.

So, what that's saying is is that if you have um a row of town homes and the one that is breaking the pattern and its side adjacent to the property line, um it's it's saying it should be five feet um or if you have a 20-foot, 21 foot tall town home, which is very common.

Um, usually more the 21 feet would require a seven foot setback.

Again, staff sees this as a single family dwelling, regardless if it's attached or detached.

Um we believe it should align with what is currently applied for single family detached.

Um questions on that increased setback for height for attached single family homes.

I don't see any questions.

Okay.

All right, next one.

ADUs.

All right, I'm excited to talk about this one.

Um so we are proposing to allow greater square footage uh for proposed ADUs.

So currently, right now, a detached ADU.

So if you want to build a separate structure from your existing home and build it as an ADU, you're currently limited to 720 square feet, gross square feet.

So that includes non-habitable areas, meaning your garage, uh an unfinished attic, um, you know, a uh an unfinished out uh sunroom or screened in porch.

Um all of that counts towards your allowable area for your ADU.

Um the code revision is gonna align it with exactly what's allowed for an accessory structure.

So currently, accessory structures are only limited to a ground floor area of 720 square feet.

Um we discussed earlier in building height that accessory.

I don't know if we discussed it, but um in the previous slide, accessory structures are allowed up to 25 feet tall, regardless of its use.

Um so right now you can build a ground floor 720 square foot shop with a 720 square foot storage area on top as long as it's within 25 feet.

You could not do that if you wanted to put an ADU on top of your shop.

Um again, this is allowing greater flexibility and more square footage for your accessory dwelling unit and its impact in terms of its size and visual impact and height, it's all gonna be the same as what's currently allowed as we permit accessory structure.

Um that is C that you see here.

So that goes C is specific to detached accessory structures.

B the current regulation for an attached ADU.

So again, this is specific to you can't access it from the interior of your home.

So whether that's a garden style entrance, you're building a unit on top of your existing one single floor single family home.

And the only way to get through it is through an exterior staircase.

Or you're just finishing out your garage.

We're proposing to increase that attached area from 10% of the current gross floor area of your home to 20%.

Question about that.

That explanation.

So that's just me not really quite understanding where in the I didn't, I didn't go to the code to look at the full thing.

And so I just want to make sure I understand because when I initially read this, I'm very concerned that and maybe I'm wrong.

I was I was a little concerned because we have so many houses.

I mean, I like I like checked the listings from the sales from last year, and we have you know tons of houses that are under 720 square feet, lots of them.

And they're they're sitting on really big lots, and so lots of infill potential, you know, to build places where people can grow multi-generational living, age in place, you know, provide naturally affordable housing.

So what you're saying is that B doesn't apply to a let's say a 680 square foot house that wants to build a 720 square foot.

Well, maybe that's not some small house that is more that is less than 20% below the threshold, that would not impact that house.

Like correctly.

Maybe my question's bad.

If it's separated, they could still buy build to 720 square feet no matter what.

Right.

Okay.

This is a limitation of how much you could exist for a connected ADU.

Correct.

Okay.

Again, not we're we're not married.

The idea that the overall approach here was to um be more flexible and allow greater use of ADUs or current code for attachments.

I'm not even aware of any attached ADUs in town, perhaps.

Um I mean, I I haven't permitted any the typical inquiry that is essentially daily is for detached.

What is the thinking behind this?

I mean, I guess I'm I could I could imagine a scenario where somebody wants it to be attached, and like the multi-generational, you know, example.

Um why this 20%?

Why not just 720 square feet?

Yeah, that's a that's a great question.

We were we just took the we we were reading how the code existed today and and thought that increasing it at a light level was at least enough to get conversation.

Yeah, I mean just you know, like the small house that we talked about, grandma lives there, and you know, kids can't afford to buy a house because the medium household, you know, median price is now what $500,000.

And so, but she can afford to tap into some equity and and build a 720 attached square foot house that now she and her grandkids can live together, and you know, mom and dad have free child care.

I just I don't know why we have B.

And in that theory, um yeah, I was just gonna say typically when it's specific family, it it's just a building addition, you know, folks want that ability to be able to get to the separate unit that's not really a separate unit anymore.

You know, I want a door to to you know, the as find the family caretaker, you know, I don't want to have to walk outside, uh, nor do I want to you know go through the extra building expense of building a firewall between these attached units.

Um again, it's it's kind of it's pretty rare, um, not just here in Forest Grove, but in general, um, when folks are looking for this strictly, you know, additional uh flexibility and renting rooms and in their property, they truly want that separation, and usually that comes with the detached, um, it's significantly less in terms of cost you a building addition versus pay for the impact of another unit.

So when attached, normally keep a door in between and just call it a building expansion.

Yeah, that what what you were saying, I agree.

And and the extended families has become more popular quite a bit.

Um in fact, in my neighborhood, they built the houses with little apartments just to accommodate the families living together.

Um, unlike what we've done in quite a while here.

So I think that that also I mean that's health right there.

That's a healthy environment is having that, you know, family stay with the kids and all of that.

So I think that we would be um if we enable them to be able to do this easily, I think it's gonna be healthy um all around.

So there was a recommendation to just remove B from this.

That's what I heard.

And um, wait, Counselor Schimmel did too.

Sorry, could you repeat that?

Uh to take B out of the development code.

In other words, if someone wants it to it would be 720, it would be there's no increase by 20% or 10%.

If someone wants to add on or create an ADU attached, it would could be up to 720 feet.

Is that correct, counselor?

So is it is there any discussion on that?

Well go ahead, Counselor Shuttle.

I guess my question might be sure I'm understanding it correctly.

Could could you recap the the provision that addresses the inclusion of square footage not touched by the product the addition, for example, like a the garage itself that you're adding above or adjacent.

Correct.

So currently the gross floor area uh cap at 72 square feet is inclusive of garages and other non-habitable areas.

So for example, if I have a detached garage behind my property, if I want to add an ADU on top of it, that ADU is only going to be limited to half of well, okay.

Let me restart the garage and the ADU on top is can only total to 720 square feet.

So that means my garage can't be more than 310 square feet, and my ADU can't be more than 310 square feet.

Um the gross floor area is inclusive of non-habitable spaces, where this is just saying your ground floor area.

So it could be non-habitable area like a garage, 720 square feet, and then ADU on top.

Um, it really doesn't matter how the configuration is now, it's just saying that you're you are allowed the the footprint, the building footprint to be 720 square feet, and you can go up 700 sorry, you can go up to 25 feet tall, and whether that space is habitable or not, uh, if it's all habitable and all ADU, if it's uh mostly shop and a small loft, the flexibility is there for you to make it um what currently exists for our accessory structures where you can build 25 feet tall, 720 square foot footprint, um but no AP.

So that currently the ADUs are more restrictive in terms of how they can be applied.

Um with the garage, we get that a lot.

Um's on how can we add on oftentimes we're due to the code, we're unable to allow that.

Um the the advantage with this proposal is that that 720 would it although it includes the ground floor garage, there's it gives them more space to work with in the current code.

Absolutely Yeah, personally, I'm all about making it easier to do ADUs.

Um I think for all the I don't mean we need don't need to recap it, but for all the reasons that my colleagues have said.

So I would be in favor of that.

I don't know how anyone else has comments, just a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

So thumbs up, strike and be and C is good.

Yeah, thumbs up to strike B and leave C.

Okay, I'm seeing and I see it from council president.

Yep.

Okay, we're good to move on.

All right, thank you.

Next slide, perfect.

Here we go.

This is simply uh correcting us for so um our code currently when when related to applying uh design standards to historic districts, um, specifically um building a new garage in terms of the door, our code reads with the question mark in there.

And I went back to the original ordinance.

Long story short, uh, when sent to the publisher, I guess it didn't recognize the fraction there, the one-third.

Um so in our code, it was an embedded with a question mark.

Um so I went back to the original ordinance, found that this is how the code reads.

This is simply replacing or correcting that scriptures.

Uh next yeah.

The next slide, please.

Okay.

So this one, the covenants uh conditions and restrictions.

So private strictions uh typically assigned to HOAs and neighborhoods.

Um we do require those up front when subdivisions are going through the subdivision process and final plat prior to recordation.

We just want to make sure that it reflects the case number and the conditions of the city that were approved for that.

Um so that's why this section is in here in the first place.

Um what we would like to add is just a clarification because this is another what feels like a daily experience for community development.

Um, is that folks are looking for us to help enforce their private restrictions.

Um, so for instance, if um if a certain subdivision prohibits a style of mailbox or a mailbox color, um, you know, that's not something that's expressed in our code, those are privately enforced.

Um, that's not something that we can up with.

If the city allows five chickens for your property, uh your your private restrictions say you can have none, that's not something that we have the legal basis to enforce.

Um, it'd be nice to have this in code again to just kind of be able to point to um instead of have to continue to have this conversation.

Yep, I'm saying he has none.

Okay.

All right.

Next one up in this.

Okay, on to non-residential use regulations.

Um, so we're proposing to allow office uses in a neighborhood mixed use zone, and we want to swap and revise the building and structure definitions.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so this is also um, I'm not sure how we got here, but uh staff feels this is uh very much an error.

Um currently in a neighborhood mixed use zone.

Um offices, the limitation, the footnote number 16 um restricts those uses um that existed in those zones since 2008.

Um this is common.

You you see the the footnote of just above one, two, three on motor vehicle servicing repair.

That's the same restriction.

Um there are a couple of existing uses within this zone, just on the outskirts of our downtown that I believe that at the time that this was created was meant for those properties.

It is absolutely not meant for uh office uses which are primarily applied in mixed use zones.

Um so again, this is our way of correcting that and allowing office usage that can apply today and aren't just restricted to office uses that existed in an MU zone 2000.

Go ahead, Counselor Feldner.

This is another maybe just thumbtack, um, but entertain me for a second.

Um I would like to put a th pin in this to have a much bigger conversation about the very long list of restrictions that also include things like a ban on neighborhood coffee shops, because we are developing a whole huge number of acres that have no amenities, and so it's very car dependent, and we'll see that there's a whole lot of other restrictions that that restrict movement in and among and around those neighborhoods that make them completely unwalkable and in my opinion, not very livable.

Um so I'd love to see us when we do get into comp plan when we do have a bigger conversation with the community about these things.

I'd like to remove some more things from this list.

I think that's a great point, and I think we are ready to have that conversation.

Uh, what we have is a very uh anti-urban sort of Euclidean sort of uh separate all uses.

Uh and that is not what the market is really demanding these days.

I mean, people talk about mixed use and they pay a premium because people want to live in mixed use areas.

Very good point.

And and I think you know, even though like we do have planned development, you know, in our code, I mean, it's a wholly it's a very different type of review structure.

So it's more expensive, has a whole lot more risk involved to it.

So it's no surprise that we don't see a whole lot of planned use, you know, plan development applications out there when it's just cheaper and easier to simply build to the code, and this is what our code allows.

And when we do see plan developments, it's usually not uh, but there's oftentimes we have staff has felt as if planned developments are used to just kind of bypass the zoning code rather than actually provide a sort of unique, sort of different sort of product and just sort of use the kind of use her whatever.

If I were to pick out sort of where the comp plan would go, I think a lot of thank you.

Any other comments on and and I appreciate those comments too because I think we heard it in the 2040 machine, and I hear it from community members all the time that they want to walkable, get things, come back, have access to amenities, right?

So thank you for bringing that up.

Thank you.

Next slide.

All right.

Um, so this is also a correction.

Uh we'll be reconciling the definitions within the development code, especially swapping um the definition for buildings and structure.

This will also align with building code.

Currently, the way it reads, um, it's it's saying that a building can be anything that is built, um, so you know walls, fences, whereas structure it is defining a wall roof building, um, including large storage tanks, and it will impact the building.

Well, the building is always a structure, but a structure is not always a building, and structures should not be um structures such as walls, fences, things like that should be subject to building.

So again, this is a contradiction of the code.

If you want a real world example of sort of what this is, I mean, right now, basically a fence meets the definition of a building, and that means every fence should meet building set max.

That means that probably almost every fence in Forest Grove is not compliant.

Uh, and that's because these two definitions, some for some reason for switched for a long time.

We're good for the fixed.

That's why thank you.

Next slide, please.

Okay, so the non-residential standards would be uh revised and clarified landscape buffer and screening standards, uh, also revise sidewalk construction standards, and then uh update uh state uh by statute number for cannabis facilities.

Next slide, please.

Okay, um uh this is kind of similar to our conversation earlier.

Um so buffers are better applied to a budding uses and not the abutting zones.

Now, um to kind of reflect on our conversation earlier with the industrial butting the residential.

Um I I absolutely it is proposed right now as zones, and um I I absolutely agree with you in that case for how that should be applied for the zoning standards um for new development.

So currently, and the the reason I want to go into this and how it's different.

Community commercial, if you look on our our um on our zoning map, it's that darker pink, it's mostly along Pacific Avenue, 19th Avenue on the western side of B Street, everywhere outside of our town center, but that is the core.

Ummunity commercial allows a lot of different uses, so it does allow a residential product that is standalone at 16.22 units per acre.

There's a lot of properties on the other side of B Street.

When I say other side, the west side, um, smaller properties that are zoned, community commercial um that are used as as residential um and uh folks seek to develop a duplex or a triplex, whatever that minimum density is along 19th Avenue, you'll see um a lot of different style of multifamily development that's five plus units.

Um you'll and then of course every commercial and institutional use that's in there too, right?

So whether it's a school, a daycare, a uh a bar, a restaurant, all of those are allowed within our commercial community commercial zone.

This gives it a more appropriate application if we're talking uses specifically to developing uses reflecting what they are butting today.

Um I understand again.

I I I think the way we had it in the way you described for the industrial, I think it reflecting the zone is important.

Um there's there's no multiple uses under a residential zone, um, unless we're talking middle housing products and uh or or a robust multi-family, but even a higher intensely zoned multifamily, it doesn't allow for single family.

So I I don't think that there's much concern there.

It's more of the uses uh when a lot of our uses institutional zones, commercial zones, um, allow a more broad list than what it implies and what it is.

Does that make a sense?

Uh no, not for me.

I'm I'm sorry, I'm I'm I'm I need you to explain it a different way.

Sure.

So for instance, I mean I think what Matt's saying, I'm sorry, but I don't want to speak over to that.

I mean, for instance, commercial community commercial, as he's saying, allows by right, uh a standalone apartment building.

So uh that is a residential use despite being in a commercial zone, right?

Yeah, and if you regulate the buffering only by zones, then you don't provide any protection to multifamily that exists within those commercial zones because it's a residential use that is nominally in a commercial zone, right?

So what staff is proposing to do is to take these buffer yards away from the zones and into the uses so that if you have an industrial use butting up against commercial, that buffer yard then reflects that it's not commercial next door, it's actually residential multi.

There and there are all kinds of zones like that where you know there are a number of less intensive uses or more sort of apt to be protect protected uses within a zone that seems more.

I think I'm understanding and I maybe yeah, so okay, so like an example, like your apartment building exists.

It's a residential use, but it's in a zone that allows for next door neighbor to develop a commercial only commercial property, and so there is no buffer.

If we if we make this zone, if it's say zone, there's no buffer requirement between an apartment building, the residence in an apartment building, and the next door neighbor that's getting developed.

Let's say it's a gas station.

Yeah, so that's my question is so then the buffer becomes what the buffer that's required under the commercial zone, or if since it's in a commercial zone, or is it the buffer that's required residential usage?

That's what I'm getting.

Like I understand, but I'm trying to figure out which one is getting applied.

The developing site will have to consider the abutting use.

So the issue here is that our code allows a multitude of different types of uses other than what appears to you only expressly allowed institutional uses, tools allows so if there's an empty parcel in a commercial and an apartment complex is the neighbor, then they would use the residential buffering.

The residence buffering for multi-family units by so if you look at that top is developing.

So if you're if you're developing site is developing, say commercial, we go into that commercial uses, and then the next is what's next to it.

Going down the Y axis that you are what what's next to it?

What's what's it what's it going to be abutting?

You'll see that from a commercial you have buffer standards between detached movement units, attached to the units, attached single use, multi-family units, and so that that yard then applies, even if that multifamily happens to be in the commercial zone, that yard will apply.

Um, and that that D, that letter D is a sort of more intensive requirement for buffering and you know, screening and things like that.

And so the uses is a way of rather than recognizing what's in the zone, it's comparing the use and the use and what's next to each other rather than oh, that's in the commercial zone.

Sorry, I'm not just no, it's okay, I got it.

I got it a couple like you got it.

I got it.

Well, maybe a provocative question.

I can't quite tell from the property, but would would that proposal preclude that marathon gas station just means it would have a buffer, not recruiting?

Well, as it's designed today, it it they would have to alter that or eliminate the sorry I was technically uh this is yeah, car wash, or is it like I can we can take that offline so any discussion on this?

I just figured it out, so I'm not like ready.

I mean, I'm just gonna be honest.

So next slide, please.

Um so this kind of goes with what we just discussed, but um, these are the options that a developing project has to uh utilize their buffer.

Um that table we saw previously prescribe the different types, these are the different types with the different options within those different types.

What staff is adding is a footnote to this section that currently reads in code um that there is already a prescribed basic that there is no option, you have to do this bare minimum in addition to one of these options.

Um again, this is just kind of for folks designing projects, taking a stab at it, trying to get it right the first time.

Everyone that designs projects, they look at these tables.

Rarely are they trying to verify that there's other things in addition to these tables.

This is the one stop shop that shows that these are the options that you get to choose when abutting adjacent uses, but keep in mind that there is also in addition, the bare minimum across the board buffer in this section.

Just simply clarifying it and putting it all, consolidating all in one spot for folks.

We have about four minutes left.

And I would honestly like almost recommend.

I mean, how long do you think the next meeting is going to take?

Ten minutes.

Yeah.

Okay, yeah.

So four.

So if we could get to stopping place in like the next few minutes, that would be great.

Sure.

Next week, please.

Yep.

Next slide, please.

All right.

So this is just making sense of uh new development.

Um we are not removing the requirement for sidewalks on collector streets proposed within new subdivisions.

We're simply just allowing them to be installed at a later date.

Uh, the example uh for parking terrace, late avenue uh that runs through it as a collector road.

Um the issue was requiring the sidewalks prior to the builders coming in and essentially moving their heavy equipment and deteriorating, destroying this new sidewalk.

This will give us the flexibility to allow those sidewalks to be installed after the bulk of the construction from the individual homes happen.

Um, and then we get a sidewalk that having been ripped from next slide, please.

Um same thing here, just correcting an error.

Um the uh state statute for cannabis facilities is not four seventy-five B, it is 475 C.

We'd like that reflected in our code uh set the standards that are within the next slide, please.

That's a stopping point, you think?

Okay, cool.

Did staff get what they need from us?

Okay, yeah, cool.

So I'm gonna thank you.

I'm gonna adjourn this work session, and we're gonna reconvene in the conference room for an executive session.

Executive sessions are closed to the public.

No formal reading my executive session.

I'm gonna read it.

No formal decisions or actions will be taken per ORS 19260.

Representatives of the news media may not attend executive sessions on labor negotiations.

So I will see you all in the conference room.