to the happy valley planning commission, my wife and i

To the Happy Valley Planning Commission,

My wife and I recently purchased 12584 SE 162nd Ave, the home located to the East of 12612 SE 162nd Ave. We are writing because we have concerns with re-zoning this particular property.

Re-zoning this property to MUR-A opens up possibilities of development that we don’t want to see happen. We bought this home, only months ago, with the understanding that the surrounding homes would remain residential. The conceptual site plan proposed by Mr. Zewdneh is for an adult care facility. We would be ok with this if proper privacy fencing is placed between our properties, which we understand would be discussed during the building plan after zoning is changed.

However, the MUR-A zoning allows for multiple townhomes, triplex, etc to be built per Code 16.22.050-1 High Density - Attached and Table 16.22.050-1 High Density Attached Residential (SFA, MUR-A, VTH) Permitted Uses in Happy Valley’s Municipal Codes. We do not want to see any of these types of structures built directly in front of our home.

Therefore, if a stipulation could be added to the zoning that would ONLY allow for Mr. Zewdneh to build his adult care facility but revert back to R-10 if for any reason he is unable. That would be acceptable.

If a stipulation cannot be added to the re-zoning we would be against this property being given a MUR-A designation.

Sincerely, Andrew Jones and Krista Schulz

This submittal has been withdrawn and re-submitted (see Jones/Schulz Resubmittal) per the complainant.

Schulz (1 of 1)

chrisa

Cross-Out

1

Chris Alfino

From: Rod & Lynda Walker <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2019 2:28 PMTo: Chris AlfinoSubject: Docket Number CPA-02-19 / LDC-04-19 Well AgreementAttachments: Well Easement Text.pdf; Original Well Agreement.pdf; Well Location Question.pdf; Well Agreement

Exhibit A.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Categories: Orange Category

Hi Chris,

Thank you for meeting with us today concerning our Well Agreement easement rights to the property located at 12612 SE 162nd Ave.

As we discussed, we are in favor of the zoning change to allow the proposed residential care facility:

(1) Provided our deeded Well Easement rights are maintained as detailed on 4attached documents. The easement area is 88 ft. north to south and 20 ft. wide east towest and was NOT shown on the Site Plan layout we received.

Original Well Agreement - This is the legal filing document with Clackamas County on our recorded property deed.

Well Agreement Exhibit A - This is the recorded Exhibit A when we transferred the property owner to our Walker Family Trust.

Well Easement Text - This is our personal understanding of the legal description with a diagram of location measurements.

Well Location Question - This is our best guess of a possible plot map locating the well (in orange) and the well easement (in yellow) on top of the site plan we received. We have a question if the "Existing Well" is in the correct location on the site plan. If it's actually farther east then the well head would be under pavement.

(2) The location of the trash enclosure is within a acceptable distance to our sleepingareas so as not to awake us should truck be driving in to empty them. We have beenconsidering creating a master suite over our garage and in this case we believe the trashenclosure would be entirely too close. With that said, we would support a designrelocation of the trash enclosure to the north side of the property.

Walker (1 of 8)

1

2

We are submitting this information and concern in response to the mailing for the zoning change from R-10 to MUR-A on the above mentioned docket number. The text of this email and our attachments are being submitted for consideration. We would be happy to have a discussion at City Hall any time concerning these matters, we're only footsteps away.

Thank you,

Rodney and Lynda Walker Walker Family Living Trust 12662 SE 162nd Ave. Happy Valley, OR 97086

503-407-5459 (Lynda's cell)

2

MVEWAYEAET

-PROPERTYL'I{E 2'

PROPERTY LINE 27(

fLdfi-6TRUEilofrfti

SITE PLAN LEGEND SITE PIAN GENERAL NOTES

PROPERTY UNE

lr l NEw coltcRerE soewat(

t. E)(EiTING INFORMATIO,II 1g SISED O}I DRAW|NGSPROVIDED BY COMPASS ITI{D SI.,RVEYORS.

2. DilENSrcNSARETO FACE OF CURB OR EDGE OFLTNOSATPING UI{LESS NOTEO OTHERII'I8E.

3. ALL I,A}|DBCAPE rtlAhlTEt{ANCE. AlrlD TOOISTO BEPROVIOED BY A filRD PARTY COffiNACTOR.

HI

elGtlroI?l

ulat

3

Well Easement

Text as recorded Beginning at a point in the west line of said Section 6, a distance of 200 feet south of the northwest

corner of said Section 6; thence East, parallel with the north line of said Section, a distance of 302 feet;

thence South parallel with the west line of said Section, a distance of 189.00 feet; thence West, parallel

with the north line of said Section a distance of 302 feet to the west line of said Section; thence North

along said west line a distance of 189.00 fee to the place of beginning.

Reserving to the grantors, however, an easement for ingress, egress and utilities over the following:

Beginning at the southwest corner of the above described parcel; thence East along the south line, 30

feet to the east line of Hagel Road; thence continuing east along said south line 19 feet to the true place

of beginning; thence North parallel with the west line of said Section 6, a distance of 88 feet; thence East

20 feet; thence South parallel with the west line of said section 6, a distance of 88 feet to the south line

of the above described tract; thence West along said south line 20 feet to the place of beginning. Said

easement is to be for water line to an existing well site and for use of the existing well.

Highlights

� First paragraph, Klawitter entire property location descriptionis first explained.

302’ EastWest by 189’ NorthSouth.

� Easement starts in Southwest corner

o 30 feet east of east line of Hagel Road (now 162nd

)

o 19 feet east to place of beginning

� NorthSouth 88 feet

� EastWest 20 feet

Easement

88 ft. NorthSouth

20 ft. EastWest

Section 6 – Klawitter Property

189 ft. NorthSouth

302 ft. EastWest

30 ft. 19 ft.

Hagel

Road

7

Well Agreement Text as recorded Grantors herein promise to pay to the grantees the sum of $2.00 per month for the cost of electricity to run the well pump; grantors and grantees each promise to pay ½ the cost of maintenance of said well; the grantors and their hers and assigns are to have permanent use of the well and right of ingress and egress thereto, from the grantees and their heirs and assigns, forever and in all events, even if other sources of water become available, the said easement running with the land forever and permanently. The heirs and assigns of the grantors are required to pay to the grantees and the heirs and assigns of the grantees the sum of $2.00 per month for the cost of electricity to run the well pump; grantors and grantees each promise to pay ½ the cost of maintenance of the well each, these promises running with the land permanently.

Highlights - Stated

� The cost of electricity to run the well pump is $2.00 per month

� Maintenance of well shall be split equally 5050

� Permanent use of the well

� Right of ingress and egress thereto

� Forever and in all events, even if other sources of water become available,

� Easement runs with the land forever and permanently.

8

Rodney and Lynda Walker Page 1

RE: Docket Number CPA-02-19 / LDC-04-19

Zoning Change located at 12612 SE 162nd Ave. Happy Valley, OR 97086

Date: November 12, 2019

From: Rodney and Lynda Walker, 12662 SE 162nd Ave. Happy Valley, OR 97086

To: City of Happy Valley Planning Commission

Statement

We are the property owners immediately to the south of the proposed zoning change.

Documents are included in your decision-making packet regarding our deeded well easement

on the subject property. We have three requests to make tonight.

Well Easement

On your Packet Page 38, under point C you will read that BAMA Architecture has stated: “The

proposed development has been designed with all utility easements unobstructed.” We

disagree with this statement. Our deeded well easement was not shown in the conceptual

development plan. Packet Page 78 shows in yellow that a parking lot is being proposed over

the top of our easement, blocking direct access to our well and water lines. (1)We are

requesting direct access to our water lines and well head not be inhibited by a hard surface

parking lot or structure.

On your Packet Page 66, Chris Alfino states the issue of a well easement “could be put off until

design review but I think regardless, their needs to be a well agreement in place. The question is

can we condition this ahead of DR as prior to construction or do we let the Walker’s wait until

DR.”

There already is a deeded well agreement in place and BAMA Architecture has not considered

it. Therefore, (2)we are requesting this be conditioned BEFORE design review due to the

Walker 11/12/191 of 2

Rodney and Lynda Walker Page 2

degree of potential change to the Conceptual Development Plan to accommodate our well

easement in 5 areas:

1. The parking area could shift to the north side of the site property.

2. The proposed structure footprint could also change to allow for our well easement.

3. The standard ratio of 1 parking space per 3 beds is marginal since there is no

overflow parking at this site. There is no street parking in this area. Overflow parking

needs to be addressed and could result in increased parking spaces.

4. In your Packet Page 37, point C, BAMA Architecture has stated “The parking area is

separate for the delivery of goods for the facility”. The Conceptual Development Plan

does not reflect this statement. It is unclear exactly where the delivery of goods occurs.

5. The driveway(s) entrances could also change to provide unobstructed access to our

easement.

In these five areas, the Conceptual Development Plan you are looking at could be altered

enough to not look anything like what you are proposing to approve tonight.

Zoning Change Conditions

(3)We are requesting the zoning change be approved with conditions. The conditions are a

restriction that the zoning change is ONLY (1) for a single story residential care facility and

ONLY (2) for the applicant.

We are not in favor of multiple townhomes and triplexes, nor a 3-story memory care facility.

Should the applicant decide not to move forward with his construction plans after the zoning

change and resell the subject property, then we are requesting the zoning change revert back

to its original zone of R-10. Allowing the applicant the ability to resell the property as MUR-A

would create an opportunity for structures and use not in keeping with a single family low

density residential area.

Thank you for considering our 3 requests.

1

Chris Alfino

From: Rod & Lynda Walker <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2019 3:33 PMTo: Chris AlfinoSubject: Soil Sample Digging ComplaintAttachments: Walker Well Lines 4.jpg; Walker Well Lines 3.jpg; Walker Well Lines 1.jpg

Hi Chris,

The backhoe digging of three holes today (11/14/19) for soil samples at 12612 SE 162nd was done at considerable RISK to our water lines from the well head.

I am officially filing a COMPLAINT.

The location service used to identify our water lines in the immediate digging area failed to mark our water lines. We came extremely close to having our water cut off from the proximity of the digging area.

Attached are photos of the digging and markings. You'll notice no markings exist in our easement to our house. Afterwards I marked out with yellow caution tape the location of our well easement. You'll notice in one photo the water lines to the main property house are clearly marked (blue and red). The water lines to our house are NOT MARKED. As I recall they are plastic and DO NOT contain a metal tracer wire. Standard water line locations will not identify our water lines and failed to do so.

In the future, when you are aware of any digging or excavation to the site property, please let everyone know there is a well easement now marked out with caution tape should anyone choose to dig in this area.

Would you please register this complaint into the record and decision making packet on Docket Number CPA-02-19/LDC-04-19

Thank you, Rod and Lynda Walker 12662 SE 162nd Ave. Happy Valley, OR 97086

Walker1 of 4

1

Chris Alfino

From: Andy Jones <[email protected]>Sent: Thursday, December 26, 2019 1:48 AMTo: Chris AlfinoSubject: 12612 SE 162nd Ave Re-zoning meetingAttachments: 12612 SE 162nd Zoning change.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Hi Chris,

I would like to have my previous written remarks rescinded from the application packet and have the attached document replace it. Since the November 12th meeting I have located and read the packet and am in complete opposition of this re-zone which would allow a commercial business to be built directly in front of our home.

Also we did not receive the revised meeting notice in the mail like some of our neighbors did. We recently bought our house and the previous owners are still listed on the mailing list for this particular project. Can you please change this so we receive any future mail regarding the re-zone? Thanks

Andrew Jones & Krista Schulz 12584 SE 162nd Ave. Happy Valley, OR 97086

Thanks,

Andrew Jones

Jones Schulz1 of 6

To the Happy Valley Planning Commission,

My name is Andrew Jones and my wife and I recently purchased 12584 SE 162nd Ave, the home located to the East of 12612 SE 162nd Ave. We are writing as opponents to the re-zoning of 12612 SE 162nd Ave. I spent many hours reading the packet related to Docket number CPA-02/LDC-04-19 (“Application” going forward) and found many issues that I have strong objections. I have several examples with objections related to each but I will focus much of my attention on the “Trip Cap” from the Transportation Impact Analysis.

On page 32 of the packet, the Recommended Conditions of Approval for the “Application” number 3 says “That, to address Transportation Planning Rule requirements, a vehicle trip generation cap of 3 AM peak hour trips and 7 PM peak hour trips shall be applied to the development.”

Furthermore, on page 45 of the packet in the last paragraph it states, “Based on discussion with the City of Happy Valley staff and their transportation engineering consultant, if the Applicant agrees to a “trip cap” limiting trip generation to that of the proposed 43-bed care facility, the February 2015 Happy Valley Transportation Impact Study Guidelines only require a transportation “letter report”. It is noted the trip generation threshold for a “letter report” is fewer than 10 PM peak hour trips. Further, if the applicant finds the trip cap acceptable, no further specific transportation analysis is necessary to address Transportation Planning Rule criteria outline in Oregon Administration Rule 660 012-0060.”

According to Packet page 47 “trip generation is estimated using data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers TripGenerationManual,10th Edition and practices from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook, 3rd Edition.” I tried to access this information to determine how a trip generation of 3 AM trips and 7 PM trips was surmised but found that access to the Manual online would cost me $895!!

According to the proposal, the Applicant agreed to the trip cap laid forward of 3 AM peak hour trips and 7 PM peak hour trips. It is my belief, with research to back it up, that a facility of this size cannot adhere to this Trip Cap. I gathered information from the Department of Human Services of Oregon’s website in regards to staffing at care facilities and show that a trip cap of closer to 40-50 per day would be needed for a facility this size. The following information regarding minimum certified nursing assistants was acquired from the Department of Human Services of Oregon’s website. (https://www.dhs.state.or.us/policy/spd/rules/411_086.pdf)

I must also disclose that I am a Registered Nurse at a local hospital. I not only understand the patient care ratio of staff to residents but make my livelihood working in it.

Minimum certified nursing assistants (CNA)

Effective March 31, 2014 Day shift: 1 CNA per 7 residents 43 residents / 7 = 7 CNAs on Day shift Evening shift: 1 CNA per 9.5 residents 43 residents / 9.5 = 5 CNAs on Evening shift Night shift: 1 CNA per 17 residents 43 residents / 17 = 3 CNAs on Night shift

The facility must determine the specific time frame for beginning and ending each consecutive eight-hour shift using one of the following options.

Option 1 Day shift from 5:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Evening shift from 1:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Night shift from 9:30 p.m. to 5:30 a.m.




Based on the above information every morning between the hours of 5:30 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. 3 CNAs would be leaving and 7 CNAs would be arriving. Between the hours of 1:30 p.m. and 3:00 p.m. 7 CNAs would be leaving and 5 CNAs would be arriving. Between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m. 5 CNAs would be leaving and 3 CNAs would be arriving.

- This accounts for 30 trips alone

In addition to CNAs the facility would require: - Administrator- Nurse- Activities person- 2-3 kitchen staff- Maintenance staff- Housekeeping

- This would account for another 5-8 trips on arrival and departure

Other unforeseeable trips that could and will occur are: - Family visitors- Trash pick up- Supply delivers including medicine, food, materials, etc.- Ambulances for ill residents- Physicians- Home health care providers- Physical therapists- Occupational therapists- This list could go on.

The conceptual design for this facility has a parking lot with 15 spaces. Does anyone think the parking lot is going to be a little crowded? This poses a problem to the transportation and traffic in the area. There is no street parking on 162nd Ave. Family members, staff members, PTs, OTs, etc. will be forced to park in residential areas on Palermo Ave. or in the City Hall parking lot!

On Packet page 48 in the second paragraph it states, “The trip generation threshold for a “letter report” is fewer than 10 PM peak hour trips and the Applicant agrees to a “trip cap” limiting trip generation to that of the proposed 43-bed care facility. As such, development trip generation is considered deminimus and no further specific transportation analysis is necessary to address Transportation Planning Rule criteria outlined in Oregon Administrative Rule 660-012-0060.

- Based on the above information the applicant will not be able to run acare facility of this size, keep the residents safe, and adhere to statestaffing guidelines while also adhering to the agreed upon trip cap.Therefore a “letter report” should not suffice and a further transportationanalysis should be necessary unless the size of the facility is drasticallyreduced.

Otherobjectionstotheapplicationarepresentedbelow:

Zone Change Narrative Statement presented by BAMA Architecture and Design LLC.

Page 34 of packet: Goal 6 – “Only staff members, visitors, and miscellaneous deliveries will be coming and going from the site minimizing the amount of traffic and noise pollution that the site could produce”.

- The “trip cap” in the TIA is grossly underestimated. There will much moretraffic and noise pollution than this proposal suggests.

Page 35 of packet: Goal 9 – “By developing an assisted living facility within this residential zone, we are creating a facility that builds economic growth and increases property values within the neighborhood while also providing a safe home for those that require additional care within the area.”

- I would argue that it decreases the value of the neighbor’s property value.I personally do not want to live next to a large care facility with manyvehicle trips, deliveries, and the noise pollution created by the facility. Itwill also become the new view out our front windows!! How will thatincrease our property value?

“The development of an assisted living facility will allow for an economic boost in an area that is predominantly residential.”

- A care facility does not necessarily create an economic boost for the area.It will create an economic boost for the owner, the employees, and themunicipalities that collect taxes from the company. However, it does notcreate an economic boost for the residents in the area, in fact it will havea negative impact by lowering our property values.

“The residents who will occupy the facility will not be driving therefore the development will not increase the amount of vehicle miles traveled and the amount of street congestion occurring within the area.”

- This again is false. All the employees, deliveries, visitors, etc. coming andgoing will increase the amount of vehicle miles traveled and the amountof street congestion occurring within the area.

“This development is very similar to a home based business that shows no outward signs of business activity.”

- I would make the argument that the outward signs of business activityare the employee trips, all the deliveries, all the visitors coming to see theresidents, etc. A home-based business in this area would be in a home ofroughly 2,000 sq. ft. not a facility that is 19,000 sq. ft.

Packet page 37 Letter D – “We have given great consideration as to how the proposed development will affect the surrounding houses and have designed the facility in a manner that minimizes noise pollution while maintaining a similar style and design elements as the surrounding residences.”

- This facility will be more than 12x the size of my house. And 5-10x thesize of many of the other surrounding homes. Regardless of the designelements used on the facility it is still a commercial business in aresidential area.

Packet page 38 Letter A under Community Design Standards – “The site size, dimensions, topography, and access are adequate for the needs of the proposed 43-bed care facility. The proposed building will be similar in mass and style as the surrounding residences and has been designed in a way to minimize noise and light pollution being produced by the residents within the facility.

- As I said before this facility is more than 12x the size of my home and 5-10x the size of other homes in the area. It is not even close to the samemass as other surrounding homes.

Packet page 38 Letter C under Community Design Standards – “We will comply with any conditional of approval that the city may impose on the site to ensure that the use is compatible with the other uses within the vicinity.”

- I would hope the city sees that the other uses in the vicinity areresidential homes and this area is not meant for a 43-bed care facility.

Packet page 39 #6 – “The change is in the public interest with regard to neighborhood or community conditions or corrects a mistake or inconsistency in the Comprehensive Plan or land use district map regarding the property which is the subject of the application.” BAMA’s response – This proposed change is in the public interest as the site is located on a major road with similar zoning and uses. This proposal would be a continuation of much needed development in the area allowing an increased livability and residential character of the neighborhood.

- Myself and my neighbors are part of the public and this is not in ourinterest. BAMA talks of a much-needed development in the area butseveral care facilities have already been built very close to the area andthere is not a shred of evidence in the proposal that this facility is needed.A quiet peaceful neighborhood is what we have and what we are askingyou to keep.

Regardless of the ruling by the planning commission, I would like to say that the zoning code of Happy Valley should be re-visited in regards to structures allowed in the MUR-A zones. As evidenced in Table 16.22.050-2, 15 dwelling units per net acre with a maximum height of 65 feet tall are allowed in a MUR-A zone. However, Residential Care Facilities are exempt from the density standards. With that being said:

Imagine that you bought your home just months ago with the understanding that you were located in a residential area. The nice plot of land in front of your home has a quaint 1900 sq. ft. house. You live close to daily amenities and shopping but have the feeling of being outside the city limits. In the evenings you have a great view of Scouter’s Mountain and the sunset. Then you find out the owner of that plot of land with the 1900 sq. ft. home wants to re-zone and build a 19,000 sq. ft., 45 ft. tall care facility.

Your view of Scouter’s Mountain and evening sunsets, will now be drowned out by a gigantic commercial building housing 43 residents. Your once quiet neighborhood now has staff members cycling into and out of the facility at all hours of the day. Not to mention delivery trucks, trash trucks, ambulances, and family member vehicles constantly moving into and out of the parking lot.

This is what my wife and I are experiencing right now.

Let’s call this what it is…a commercial business in a residential neighborhood.

In closing, I hope that the members of the planning commission will listen to their constituents that will be affected most by this re-zoning and deny the application.