Please stand for the flag salute.
» I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
justice for all.
» All right. Could we please have the roll call?
Gary Kunowsky. >> Here.
» Robertson. >> Here.
» Rochelle. >> Here.
» Baxter. >> Here.
» Fountain. Malloy.
Miller. >> Here.
» Thompson. >> Here.
» And Bulmer.
Thank you. All right, we've got minutes on the agenda from July 15th, but we're
going to go ahead and um not cover those tonight. They're going to be corrected
and we'll do that at a later date. Um so, this portion of the agenda is
reserved for any members of the public who would like to address the planning
commission on any topic that is not related to any items on the agenda.
If you'd like to If you'd like to address the planning
commission, please come forward, sign in, and state your name before your
comments. All right, seeing none, we'll move on to
the public hearing portion of the meeting.
Um there's one public hearing on the agenda tonight. Before we begin the
public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, I would like to briefly explain
the process. Staff will present a staff report
summarizing the application and applicable approval criteria.
Commissioners may ask staff questions following the presentation.
The applicant will then have an opportunity to present testimony
regarding the application. And after the applicant's testimony, members of the
public will be invited to provide testimony. We'll first take testimony in
favor of the application followed by testimony in opposition.
Following public testimony, the applicant will be given an opportunity
to provide their rebuttal. Once all testimony's been received, the public
hearing will be closed. After the hearing is closed, the discussion will
be limited to the planning commission and staff, and the commission will
deliberate and make a decision based upon the applicable approval criteria
and evidence in the record. If anyone wishes to testify this
evening, please complete a sign-in sheet and state your name and address for the
record before providing testimony. At this time, I'll ask city attorney to
review the public hearing procedures. >> Thank you. Tonight's hearing will be
pursuant to the quasi-judicial procedure set out in 197.797.
At the start of the hearing, each commission member will be asked to
disclose any ex parte communications, conflict of interest, or bias.
The applicable substantive criteria for this hearing will be addressed in the
staff report. Testimony may be in oral or written form, but must be directed
towards the criteria, the comprehensive plan, or the city's land use
regulations. Any issue raised must be accompanied by statements and evidence
sufficient enough to allow the commission and parties an opportunity to
respond. Please note the failure to raise an issue, including constitutional
issue, by the close of the hearing will prevent any appeal to the land use board
of appeals. With that, you can ask for any conflict of interest, bias, or ex
parte contact. >> All right. We'll open the public hearing
planning file AR-26-07
and S-26-04.
Is there any conflict of interest, ex parte communication, or bias to report?
» I'll go ahead and disclose that the uh property on the west side of 12th
Street, across the street from the subject property,
uh I am a trustee for the ownership of that property, but it has
nothing to do with my decision.
» All right. Anyone else?
Okay. I'll go ahead and turn it over to staff for the staff report.
» Good evening, um blank chair and commissioners.
Tonight's public hearing is for two related land use applications. As I
review the proposal, I will explain how the applicable approval criteria,
evidence in record, and findings work together to support the commissioners'
decisions. Because this is a quasi-judicial land
use matter, the commissioners' role is to determine whether the proposal
satisfies the applicable criteria in the Lebanon Development Code.
This decision is not based on whether the proposed development is generally
liked or disliked. It's whether a different or whether a different design
might be preferred. It must be based on the approval criteria and the evidence
in record. The applicant is responsible for
demonstrating compliance. The record includes the application materials,
plans, staff report, and agency comments, written comments,
and if we had received any testimony. The staff report and draft order provide
recommendations for commissioners' consideration.
These two applications will be considered together because they
represent two parts of the same development proposal.
The first is an administrative review. Under the development code, the
administrative review process reviews town homes or row house projects within
with 19 units or fewer in a residential mixed density zone.
This application addresses the proposed use and site development for four town
homes. The second is a tentative subdivision.
The application pro pro um
proposes dividing approximately 0.46 acres into four individual tax lots. It
also establishes the framework for access, utilities, drainage, and the
final plat. The distinction between the two
application is important. The administrative review authorizes
[snorts] the proposed townhouse development, but as does not create the
four legal lots. The tentative subdivision establishes the proposed lot
lay- layout and land division requirements with the legal lots created
through an approval and recording of a final plat.
However, the subdivision alone does not authorize the townhouse development
shown on the plans. Both approvals are therefore necessary and each on its own
has its own approval criteria and findings.
Public notice for the hearing was issued on July 23rd, 2026
in accordance with the development code and no written public comments were
received before tonight's hearing. For the administrative review, the
principal criteria allowed the address the allowed use and development
standards and for the subdivision the criteria addresses the lot dimensions.
All the criteria have been identified as met with conditions and the remaining
items can be addressed through proposed conditions.
The site is approximately 0.46 acres. It's currently undeveloped and is
located east of 1685 South 12th Street. It's identified as tax lot um and map
12S 2W 15BC, tax lot 2401 and it is zoned residential mixed density.
Access is provided from South 12 through an existing 30-ft wide private access
and utility easement. Public water and sanitary sewer
facilities are available to serve the property.
These existing conditions are important to the subdivision review. The zoning
establishes the allowed use and the applicable development standard. The
size and configuration of the property determine whether four compliant lots
can be created. The existing easement and availability
of public utility supports the findings related to access and public facilities.
The surrounding area is primarily residential and includes a range of
housing types permitted within the RM zone. The record does not identify any
map hazard areas, overlays, um any special special area plans, or
previously approved developments that would prevent development on this
property. These site conditions provide the
foundation for review for proposed lot layout and the townhome development
shown on the following slides.
The tentative subdivision would divide the property into four residential lots.
The net area ranges from approximately 25 um 121 to 4,374
square foot with lot widths ranging from approximately 36 to 61 feet.
The residential mixed zone requires a minimum lot area of 2,500 square foot
and a minimum width of 20 for townhomes, and all four lots meet or exceed these
standards.
Access will be provided through an existing 30-foot wide access and utility
easement from South 12. The plan shows 24-foot wide shared private private
driveway. Each dwelling would have
also have two off-street parking spaces located outside the shared travel area.
At this stage, the commission is is determining whether the proposal
proposed layout can comply with the development code. The access criteria
are identified as met with conditions because the access easement and a
maintenance agreement for the shared improvements must be completed before
the final plat.
The proposed The proposal includes four attached townhomes or row rowhouse
dwellings. This types of development is allowed in the RM zone through an
administrative review process. The criteria required for the
development to comply with the use and dimension standards of the zone. The
proposed lots meet with the minimum area and width requirements as discussed on
the previous slides, and the final building permits also must demonstrate
compliance with the setbacks, lot coverage, building heights, garage
opening standards before permits are issued. For that reason, this criteria
is identified as met with conditions. The proposal provides two off-street
parkings for each dwelling for the total of eight. Those spaces will remain
unused usable and cannot obstruct the private shared driveway.
The remaining criteria addressing landscaping, screening, lighting, sites,
and other features will be addressed through our engineering design standard
reviews.
Each existing public water and sanitary sewer facilities are available to serve
the development. Each lot will have independent water
service and sanitary sewer laterals. Final locations, connections, um will be
handled through our city's permit process.
The proposed stormwater system will discharge east through the private
off-site drainage route to the existing system in Strawberry Lane.
Before final plat approval, the applicant must obtain and record the
necessary drainage easements and secure any required approval for connecting to
the receiving system.
The Lebanon Fire Department also reviewed the proposal and final plans
must comply with the fire code um and any other applicable fire life safety.
In summary, the proposed use is allowed in the RM zone and the four lots meet
the dimension standards, access, parking, and public facilities.
The remaining engineering and fire requirements can be addressed through
proposed conditions. The draft order contains the criteria by criteria
findings based on those findings and the material that agency comments staff
recommends approval of both the administrative review and the tentative
subdivision. And that concludes my presentation and
I'm available for questions. >> All right. Thank you, commissioners. Do
you have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing?
» I have one question just cuz I can't figure it out on the map.
Which lot is the flag attached to? Is it the back one? Like lot
four?
And if you guys can't answer that, I'm sure Mr. Van
» be I'm assuming it's lot four, but that might be a
The property lines aren't dictate obvious on that.
» I have a similar larger lot
Um the larger lot lot four. The extension of the driveway and the
access road, is that buildable space at the end there?
» It would depend on setbacks and their orientation, but there'll be required
setbacks of the property lines depending on where those property lines are.
» But does that belong to the larger lot? >> It looks like it.
» like >> Like yeah.
» I was just curious. Thanks.
» All right. If there are no further questions, I'll open up the public
hearing and welcome the applicant to come forward and provide testimony.
» [clears throat] >> Good evening.
Chairperson, commissioners, staff, legal counsel.
» [laughter] >> My name is Brian Vendetta, 63 East Ash
Street, Lebanon, Oregon. Um
Shannon did such did such a fine job of summarizing the proposal. I think if I
were to tell you what I was prepared to tell
you, I'd duplicate everything she said. So, with that, I think I'll jump right
in and ask answer Mr. Kennedy's question. The lot four is
the owner of the flag, and then there's a 30-ft easement that extends across the
entire flag portion all the way to the east property line. And that easement
[clears throat] extension along with the existing 20-ft PUE that's over the sewer
line that's existing would render that small portion at the end of the private
lane non-buildable just because it's encumbered with with easements.
Um maybe go a little further than I need
to, but we strategically made that lot larger because my client's pursuing
buying the property to the east. Um so he would
then continue the extension and create more lots
in that property as well. Um
with that said we've read through, understand all of
the conditions as proposed, and we accept them as written
and would ask that you would approve the subdivision and administrative review
for the townhomes this evening. And I'd be more than happy to answer any
questions.
» All right. Thank you.
» The hearing's now open for members of the public to speak in favor of the
application.
Um we don't have anybody online, I'm assuming.
So, seeing none, I will open up the members for members of the public to
speak in opposition of the application. Seeing none.
Um the applicant uh does not need to provide a rebuttal.
Um okay. So, seeing no further comments or questions from the applicant for the
applicant, I'll now close the public hearing.
All further discussion will be limited to the planning commission and staff.
So, based on the testimony and staff report, do we
how do we feel about the criteria? >> I think they've been met.
» All right. Would anyone like to make a motion? Oh,
» I think Rosemary I just what you said were looking at buying more property to
the east. I assume the east is at the end of the street and
I just want to make sure in my mind that if we
approve something like this are we locking ourselves into
some further development that may not
I assume we're not. >> No.
» We are not. >> No.
» We have code to to restrict access per how many dwelling units and so they will
have to meet that criteria in our code. And it will be its own application to
come back to us depending on the level that they provide.
All right. Any other questions, comments?
Would anyone like to make a motion?
» I move that the Planning Commission approve applications for AR-26-07
and S-26-04 and adopt the draft order as presented
by staff. >> All right. Do we have a second?
» I'll second. >> All right. All those in favor?
» Say I. >> I.
» I. >> All those opposed?
All right. Motion passes. Thank you.
All right. We'll move on to commission business and comments if there are any.
No. Okay.
Um in September there will be no Planning Commission meeting and the next
regular scheduled meeting is for October 21st.
So this meeting is now adjourned at 6:17 p.m.