I would like to call tonight's meeting to order.

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the library.

Undervisible liberty justice.

So we begin our meeting this evening.

I'll take a moment to acknowledge that we have a quorum of planning commissioners present with eight of nine commissioners in attendance.

Commissioner Breen unable to join us this evening.

Also like to welcome our newest planning commissioner, Scott Sealing, to our his first meeting.

So good to have you here, Mr.

Sealing.

Um before I get to that item in the agenda, just in case there's anyone in the audience, the public hearing on the Cedar Creek issue.

There has been a continuance on that.

We will not be discussing that when we get to that item in the agenda.

So if you're here for that, um you're welcome to stay, but we won't be talking about it.

So I want to thank everyone in the chamber for attending this evening's meeting.

Planning commission meetings are an important part of the process for interpreting and applying the city's comprehensive plan and the unified development ordinance.

It's important that our meetings are conducted with dignity and respect.

That applies to every person in attendance.

We strive to provide an atmosphere where the ideas and opinions of all participants are held in the highest regard.

Finally, the actions of the issues we discuss here are ultimately under the responsibility of the city council.

As a planning commission, we're here to help the councils, our elected representatives to be fully informed to make the best choices for our city.

By statute, the planning commission strives not to engage with any party on the issues on our agenda prior to our meeting.

Should that interaction take place as a result of a business relationship or any other interaction, which we refer to as ex parte communication, commissioners will report that interaction when we reach that item on the agenda.

We'll now move to the consent agenda.

This evening we have four items on our consent agenda.

Commissioners, do you need to pull any items for additional information or questions from staff?

Uh seeing none, I will call for a motion on the item, please.

Mr.

Chair, I would move for the approval of the consent agenda.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigida.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

All those in favor say aye.

All opposed.

That motion passes 8-0.

This evening we had three originally scheduled public hearings.

The first public hearing is the request for approval to rezoning for stellar apartments, which is located southeast of 133rd and Blackfoot Drive.

Ms.

Carrillo is with this evening to present the case.

Yes, thank you.

Welcome.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Good evening.

Emily Carillo, senior planner.

As introduced, the following is a request for rezoning for and a preliminary site development plan for stellar apartments.

The subject property is located in the vicinity of 135th and Black Bob Road, highlighted here on the screen.

Just under 15 acres, the proposed multifamily development consists of eight apartment buildings that include amenities for a total of 280 residential units.

The property was zoned to the C2 district in 1988.

At that time, the preliminary site development plan identified a strip retail center on the site.

However, no final site development plans have been approved for the property, and the site has remained vacant and undeveloped since that time.

So we'll dive into the site plan.

As mentioned, the proposed development does include eight multifamily buildings.

These buildings are a mix of three-story and three and four-story split buildings where grade changes allow.

And so the three-story buildings highlighted here in kind of the lighter blue shade are 37 feet in height.

And then the split 3-4-story buildings highlighted in dark blue are 47 feet in height, meeting UDO requirements for the R4 district.

The development also provides a balanced mix of both surface parking as well as garages and car ports.

You can see them here highlighted in orange and integrated into the internal to the site.

The applicant is providing just over eight acres of common open space with approximately two acres of that being active open space, including a clubhouse with outdoor swimming pool located interior to the site here, as well as a dog park, a mix of picnic and seating and common common areas for residents, and also a walking trail.

The proposed development does preserve approximately 35% of the existing tree stand area, primarily along the south and east property lines.

You can see highlighted in green, which does exceed the minimum requirement of the UDO.

The project includes parking lot landscaping and screening, foundation landscaping, street trees along both 133rd Street and Blackfoot Drive, all in compliance with UDO standards.

The applicant is requesting one waiver from UDO 1830-130, and that is to reduce the type 5B landscape buffer.

It's a 75-foot buffer along portions of the south and east property lines.

The applicant is proposing a reduction to 28 feet along the southern boundary and 35 along a portion of the eastern boundary, as you can see highlighted here on the screen.

And staff is supporting of those requested reductions for reasons outlined in the report.

Go through just a couple of project renderings to kind of give you a better sense of the design and quality proposed with this development.

This is kind of a high-level rendering looking south from 133rd Street.

The buildings are finished with class one bricks, stucco, and glass, and include lap siding accents in mutual tone tones, excuse me.

All facades do provide between 72 and 100% class one materials there for exceeding UDO requirements.

Additionally, all units include patios and decks exceeding UDO size requirements, and each building provides the required variation and building articulation, height variation, and expression techniques.

So meeting code, no waiver requests for architecture being requested.

The applicant has met all public notice requirements in accordance with the UDO.

A neighborhood meeting was held on November 19th with no residents in attendance, and staff nor the applicant have received any correspondence regarding the application.

Staff is recommending approval of the rezoning RZ 25-0016 with no stipulations, and also approval of the preliminary site development plan as stipulated.

This application will proceed on to city council on the January 20th, 2026 agenda.

And that concludes my presentation this evening.

The applicant is in attendance and available for any questions that you might have, and we'll stand by for any questions you might have for either of us.

Okay.

Do they have a prepared presentation or are we just rolling with your we don't have anything?

Um if you have any questions, they have some stuff they can pull up if need be.

Perfect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Grohl.

Uh commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

Commissioner Chair.

Thank you, Chair.

Ms.

Carillo, um, thank you for your presentation.

Quick question: the intersection of 133rd and Black Bob.

It currently is not a uh monitored uh intersection, and it's a fairly busy intersection right now.

Are there any plans to add uh any type of stoplights or any type of traffic control at that location?

I'm gonna defer to um Chet Elcher for this answer.

Yeah.

Good evening, Chet Belcher, Chief Community Development Officer.

So yeah, there's there we monitor specific arterials we take counts every year and monitor the traffic.

There's also development to the east there that we've looked at that also is looking at some sort of control on that that intersection.

So yeah, once it hits a trigger, um, you know, we we react to those and take the appropriate measures.

I know the 133rd Street uh east of here is in the Capital and Five Year Capital Improvement Program, so it would be addressed for that as well.

Good.

Thank you.

Yeah, and I would point on that, um, Chad, uh, when we pass the development on the east side of uh black bob, uh, the pre-development through there that is the the stoplight was part of that presentation.

That's correct.

So it hasn't begun because it hasn't broke ground on that.

But that would be the trigger, I think, that would probably be a good one.

Or if the city undertook the project on our own.

So any other questions?

Commissioner Bergida.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Ms.

Carol, and some of these might be better answered by the applicant.

Um, but could we confirm the number of units at 280?

Because I'm seeing in this letter and also in the presentation, there was also the number of 17.2 units per acre.

And when I divide 280 by 14.64 acres, I'm getting 19.12 units.

So it's 280 units, correct?

And 17.2, that number is a little understood.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

And then for the notification, I know sometimes when we do public notice, it's 500 uh within 500 feet of a property.

What's the um the rule of the reasoning for the 200 uh feet as opposed to 500 feet for the notification?

The 200 feet is our certified notification when there's a rezoning or a public hearing, and that's a state statute.

Um we do 500 feet just for the neighborhood meeting.

So everybody within 500 feet would have got a notice that said we're going to have a neighborhood meeting in November.

Um, the people within 200 feet received the certified mail um notice of tonight's public hearing.

Gotcha.

So when there was that neighborhood meeting, it was 500 feet.

And then for tonight it was 200.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

And then is there a particular site standard for R 4 that we'll be holding this development to, or if they decided they wanted to increase the units to per acre to 19 or 25 or whatever, would they be able to do that without coming to see us?

Yeah, that would require coming back through here if like shifting those categories in the in under the zoning dimensional standards, correct?

So are they on Site 1 dimensional standards?

I believe so.

I don't have that in front of me, but I believe so, yes.

I can confirm I can cross-reference that and confirm that with you for you, though.

Okay.

Um because if that's the case, then we'd we'd only be able to approve.

A similar number of units, I believe, but I think it's a a few less.

Um then two, in what is it now, C2?

Is that what it is currently?

Yes, it's currently C2.

If in C2 are mixed uh developments permitted, like a combination of a mixed use.

Correct.

Yes, it would be.

Okay.

Like a vertical mixed use.

Yes.

All right.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay.

Yes.

Commissioner Toronis.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Microphone.

Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Thank you for your presentation.

Could you please uh pull up the screen where it shows the uh the landscape buffer?

I know what I'm reading, but can you walk so I understand what we're looking at uh the landscape buffer from 75 feet to 28 feet and show where the what we're talking about here on the screen.

Is it highlighted in green?

What you see on the screen highlighted in green is the existing tree stand that's gonna be preserved.

So essentially this dotted line that you kind of see follow in these areas is that 75 foot where that 75 foot buffer would be.

And so let me click here.

So that's looking to be reduced in this area adjacent to the parking from that 75 down to 35.

We feel the landscaping that's existing and the trees that are being preserved still provide an adequate buffer with that reduction to properties adjacent to the east.

And then along the southern portion here where we're reducing that from 75 to 35, it aligns with that parking paving.

There is some tree preservation happening there along the southern um property line, but we're also adding a double row of evergreens that you can see down there to provide additional buffering and screening from the parking for any future development that would occur to the south there.

Okay.

Thank you.

That helps.

Any additional questions from Commissioners?

Okay.

If not, um we'll move towards our public hearing.

Before I open the public hearing, I'd like to provide a little information on the process, and this will apply to all of our public hearings since we do have multiple ones on our agenda this evening.

Um first of all, and thank you if you're here for that purpose.

Um thank you for attending.

We appreciate your per participation.

And we understand that the comments and feedback that the public has submitted to the city, we have already received.

We get emails, uh things of those nature, and we have reviewed those already, and they are part of the record and will also be forwarded on to the city council.

Um in accordance with our bylaws, each speaker does have five minutes designated by the countdown clock, you'll see over to my left.

Um that will be where how you can keep track as you will stand and speak from the podium over here.

If your points um have already been made, if we have multiple speakers, um it's not necessary to repeat yourself.

Um we are like I said, we want to look for new things.

We want to make sure that all points that are relevant or heard.

Um, but if somebody stands up before you and says everything you were going to say, it's okay to say I'm good, I pass.

Um the decision is based on the information that's going to be provided to us from all parties.

Um believe me, every opinion will be heard.

So and we uh we'll move forward on this.

And now I will open the public hearing.

And this evening for this issue we have one person signed up to speak.

Um if you come up to the podium, uh state your name and address for the record, uh, your five minutes will begin after that.

Uh Paul Stell.

Okay.

Well, that was easy.

Thanks, Paul.

Um this public hearing is now closed.

All right.

Um could we get a motion on the uh to close the public hearing?

Just a moment.

Uh do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Mr.

Chair, I'll move to close the public hearing.

All right, may I have a second?

All second.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

Ms.

Roll, uh, will we take a roll call vote, please?

Sure.

Commissioner Brown?

Uh yes.

Commissioner Torones?

Yes.

Commissioner Burkida?

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Sealing?

Yes.

Commissioner Lynn?

Yes.

Commissioner Corcran?

Yes.

Chair Janner?

Yes.

That motion passes 8-0.

All right.

So the public hearing is hereby closed, and we'll call now for a motion on RZ 250016 for passage.

Mr.

Chairman, I have a point of inquiry.

Um this may be best directed.

If we wanted to make sure that this is site one and that we are sticking within the 18 units per acre, I think it would come to 263 units as opposed to the 280.

How would we uh craft that motion for this item?

Can I interrupt?

Just sorry.

Um, Emily Corello, senior planner.

During this discussion, we looked this up.

It did, I want to confirm it is site two, that second column within the R4 dimensional standard.

So it's not the site one, it's that site two.

So that's increasing.

Correct, yes.

Okay.

Well then I withdrew my my question.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigita, for noting on that.

Does there any other for move forward any other discussion or questions among the commissioners?

If not, I'll entertain a motion for RZ25-0016.

Mr.

Chair, I move we approve RZ25-0016 as stipulated by staff.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Do I have a second?

Thank you, Commissioner Lynn.

Ms.

Will.

Roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Corcoran?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Toronas?

Yes.

Commissioner Brigida?

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Sealing?

Yes.

Commissioner Lin.

Yes.

Chair Channer?

Yes.

That motion passes 8 to 0.

Okay, moving on to the second public hearing.

This is one I referenced earlier.

The applicant has requested a continuance to a future planning commission meeting.

When a case is scheduled for a continuance, the public hearing will not be open.

Comments, recommendation, or analysis for the case are not provided or discussed until that time when the public hearing is open.

This process assures that anyone that does have an interest in the issue has full opportunity to participate.

So for our continuance, is there a motion for RZ25-0017?

Mr.

Chair, I would move to continue RZ25-0017 to a future date.

Thank you, Commissioner Bergidi.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Corcoran.

I'll take a voice vote on this on the all those in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed nay.

And that passes 8 to 0.

Move forward now to our third and final public hearing.

Item is request for approval of rezoning for Solomon's Porch Assisted Living located at 16560 West Indian Creek Parkway.

Ms.

Vandevel's here this evening.

We'll present the case.

Welcome.

All right.

Good evening, Commissioners.

Taylor Vandevelde Planner 2.

The following is a request to rezone 2.74 acres to the C1 district with a preliminary site development plan for Solomon's porch to allow for the assisted living use at the property.

The property is outlined in yellow and located on Merlin south of 127th and north of 135th Street there.

More specifically, it's located northeast of Merlin and Indian Creek Parkway.

The property has shared access through the existing Indian Creek Business Park dashed on your screen there.

And that allows access to Merlin and to Indian Creek Parkway as well.

The future land use map of the comprehensive plan generally designates this area as mixed density residential neighborhood, which the proposed assisting living use aligns with.

The project also meets several housing policies from the Plan Oletha comprehensive plan, including compatible infill development, housing choices specifically for senior housing, and community for all ages program schools.

The area around the property has a wide variety of commercial and residential zoning.

The lot itself has remained vacant since it's zoned to the office district in 1987.

The proposed C1 district would retain commercial at this intersection, but allow for a compatible transitional use for assisted living at the property adjacent to existing residential.

Staff recommends the following use restriction for future compatibility for the adjacent residential.

Those are shaded in orange on your screen for the assisted living use.

Each building will have 16 bedrooms with indoor common spaces for the residents, as well as provides outdoor amenities, including some walking paths and coi pond with in a future fenced area behind the buildings for the residents as well.

The project will construct 40 parking spaces for employees and visitors, which exceeds the parking minimums for this development, as well as not requiring uh additional parking for residents who will be residing in the development as well.

The building uh will be similar in size to the existing office buildings as well, and we'll have a substantial setback from the existing residential to the east and to the north.

The northern building uh top of your screen is set back minimum of 44 feet from the north and 110 feet from the east, and the building to the south is set back, a minimum of 115 feet, which significantly exceeds setback requirements for the C1 district.

The applicant is preserving 62 percent of the site for open space, which is also significantly exceeding UDO standards, and is meeting landscaping requirements with a mix of trees and shrubs around the property, including foundational landscaping and parking lot landscaping as well.

Um the applicant is also providing stormwater detention area in the back behind the buildings, which is shaded in blue on the right of your screen.

The buildings themselves will be primarily stucco, stone, and siding and designed to blend with the existing office buildings while also providing a residential feel for the development as well.

Each building will be one story and approximately 21 feet tall with a primary entrance located here.

That's facing west towards the parking lot, and then a back entrance for residents to access the shared amenities in the back.

All notification requirements were met and a public a neighborhood meeting, excuse me, was held on November 20th with three attendees.

Main topics included stormwater and drainage and also the timeline and operations of the project itself.

And staff also recommends approval of the preliminary plans as stipulated.

This application will be considered at the January 20th, 2026 City Council meeting.

Thank you.

Great.

Thank you, Taylor.

Commissioners, do you have any questions for staff?

Okay, seeing none, um I will open up the public hearing.

However, we have no one signed up to speak for the public hearing, so I will entertain a motion to close it.

So moved.

Thank you, Commissioner Chapman.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Brown.

All those in favor say aye.

Opposed, nay.

And the public hearing is now closed.

Is there any additional discussion needed from commissioners on this item?

Well, seeing none, I'll call for a motion on RZ25-0018.

Mr.

Chair.

Make a motion we approve.

RZ 25-001.

Excuse me, 018 as stipulated by staff.

All right.

Thank you, Commissioner Tronis.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Thank you, Commissioner Brigida.

As well, roll call vote, please.

Commissioner Lynn.

Yes.

Commissioner Corcoran?

Yes.

Commissioner Brown?

Yes.

Commissioner Toronto.

Yes.

Commissioner Brigida?

Yes.

Commissioner Chapman?

Yes.

Commissioner Sealing?

Yes.

Chair Janeth?

Yes.

That motion passes 8 to 0.

All right.

Thank you.

Do we have any announcements from our staff this evening?

No.

Nothing tonight.

Okay, I only have one.

Merry Christmas.

Meeting is hereby adjourned.

Well done.