[0:00] Please stand for the flag salute.
[0:05] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[0:10] republic for which it stands, one nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:17] justice for all.
[0:22] » All right. Could we please have the roll
call?
[0:25] Gary Kunowsky.
>> Here.
[0:27] » Robertson.
>> Here.
[0:29] » Rochelle.
>> Here.
[0:31] » Baxter.
>> Here.
[0:32] » Fountain.
Malloy.
[0:36] Miller.
>> Here.
[0:38] » Thompson.
>> Here.
[0:39] » And Bulmer.
[0:43] Thank you. All right, we've got minutes
on the agenda from July 15th, but we're
[0:47] going to go ahead and um not cover those
tonight. They're going to be corrected
[0:52] and we'll do that at a later date.
Um so, this portion of the agenda is
[0:57] reserved for any members of the public
who would like to address the planning
[1:01] commission on any topic that is not
related to any items on the agenda.
[1:06] If you'd like to
If you'd like to address the planning
[1:09] commission, please come forward, sign
in, and state your name before your
[1:12] comments.
All right, seeing none, we'll move on to
[1:16] the public hearing portion of the
meeting.
[1:19] Um there's one public hearing on the
agenda tonight. Before we begin the
[1:23] public hearing portion of tonight's
meeting, I would like to briefly explain
[1:27] the process.
Staff will present a staff report
[1:31] summarizing the application and
applicable approval criteria.
[1:35] Commissioners may ask staff questions
following the presentation.
[1:39] The applicant will then have an
opportunity to present testimony
[1:43] regarding the application. And after the
applicant's testimony, members of the
[1:47] public will be invited to provide
testimony. We'll first take testimony in
[1:52] favor of the application followed by
testimony in opposition.
[1:56] Following public testimony, the
applicant will be given an opportunity
[2:00] to provide their rebuttal. Once all
testimony's been received, the public
[2:04] hearing will be closed. After the
hearing is closed, the discussion will
[2:08] be limited to the planning commission
and staff, and the commission will
[2:11] deliberate and make a decision based
upon the applicable approval criteria
[2:16] and evidence in the record.
If anyone wishes to testify this
[2:20] evening, please complete a sign-in sheet
and state your name and address for the
[2:24] record before providing testimony.
At this time, I'll ask city attorney to
[2:29] review the public hearing procedures.
>> Thank you. Tonight's hearing will be
[2:33] pursuant to the quasi-judicial procedure
set out in 197.797.
[2:37] At the start of the hearing, each
commission member will be asked to
[2:39] disclose any ex parte communications,
conflict of interest, or bias.
[2:43] The applicable substantive criteria for
this hearing will be addressed in the
[2:46] staff report. Testimony may be in oral
or written form, but must be directed
[2:49] towards the criteria, the comprehensive
plan, or the city's land use
[2:53] regulations. Any issue raised must be
accompanied by statements and evidence
[2:56] sufficient enough to allow the
commission and parties an opportunity to
[2:59] respond. Please note the failure to
raise an issue, including constitutional
[3:02] issue, by the close of the hearing will
prevent any appeal to the land use board
[3:05] of appeals. With that, you can ask for
any conflict of interest, bias, or ex
[3:09] parte contact.
>> All right. We'll open the public hearing
[3:13] planning file AR-26-07
[3:17] and S-26-04.
[3:21] Is there any conflict of interest, ex
parte communication, or bias to report?
[3:27] » I'll go ahead and disclose that the uh
property on the west side of 12th
[3:31] Street, across the street from the
subject property,
[3:34] uh I am a trustee for the ownership of
that property, but it has
[3:39] nothing to do with my decision.
[3:44] » All right. Anyone else?
[3:48] Okay. I'll go ahead and turn it over to
staff for the staff report.
[3:54] » Good evening,
um blank chair and commissioners.
[3:57] Tonight's public hearing is for two
related land use applications. As I
[4:01] review the proposal, I will explain how
the applicable approval criteria,
[4:06] evidence in record, and findings work
together to support the commissioners'
[4:09] decisions.
Because this is a quasi-judicial land
[4:13] use matter, the commissioners' role is
to determine whether the proposal
[4:16] satisfies the applicable criteria in the
Lebanon Development Code.
[4:21] This decision is not based on whether
the proposed development is generally
[4:24] liked or disliked. It's whether a
different or whether a different design
[4:28] might be preferred. It must be based on
the approval criteria and the evidence
[4:32] in record.
The applicant is responsible for
[4:35] demonstrating compliance. The record
includes the application materials,
[4:39] plans, staff report,
and agency comments, written comments,
[4:43] and if we had received any testimony.
The staff report and draft order provide
[4:48] recommendations for commissioners'
consideration.
[4:51] These two applications will be
considered together because they
[4:54] represent two parts of the same
development proposal.
[4:58] The first is an administrative review.
Under the development code, the
[5:02] administrative review process reviews
town homes or row house projects within
[5:07] with 19 units or fewer in a residential
mixed density zone.
[5:12] This application addresses the proposed
use and site development for four town
[5:16] homes.
The second is a tentative subdivision.
[5:20] The application pro
pro um
[5:23] proposes dividing approximately 0.46
acres into four individual tax lots. It
[5:28] also establishes the framework for
access, utilities, drainage, and the
[5:33] final plat.
The distinction between the two
[5:36] application is important. The
administrative review authorizes
[5:40] [snorts] the proposed townhouse
development, but as does not create the
[5:44] four legal lots. The tentative
subdivision establishes the proposed lot
[5:49] lay- layout and land division
requirements with the legal lots created
[5:53] through an approval and recording of a
final plat.
[5:57] However, the subdivision alone does not
authorize the townhouse development
[6:01] shown on the plans. Both approvals are
therefore necessary and each on its own
[6:05] has its own approval criteria and
findings.
[6:11] Public notice for the hearing was issued
on July 23rd, 2026
[6:17] in accordance with the development code
and no written public comments were
[6:20] received before tonight's hearing.
For the administrative review, the
[6:24] principal criteria allowed the address
the allowed use and development
[6:28] standards and for the subdivision the
criteria addresses the lot dimensions.
[6:33] All the criteria have been identified as
met with conditions and the remaining
[6:37] items can be addressed through proposed
conditions.
[6:41] The site is approximately 0.46 acres.
It's currently undeveloped and is
[6:45] located east of 1685 South 12th Street.
It's identified as tax lot um and map
[6:53] 12S 2W 15BC, tax lot 2401 and it is
zoned residential mixed density.
[7:00] Access is provided from South 12 through
an existing 30-ft wide private access
[7:06] and utility easement.
Public water and sanitary sewer
[7:10] facilities are available to serve the
property.
[7:13] These existing conditions are important
to the subdivision review. The zoning
[7:17] establishes the allowed use and the
applicable development standard. The
[7:21] size and configuration of the property
determine whether four compliant lots
[7:25] can be created.
The existing easement and availability
[7:29] of public utility supports the findings
related to access and public facilities.
[7:35] The surrounding area is primarily
residential and includes a range of
[7:38] housing types permitted within the RM
zone. The record does not identify any
[7:43] map hazard areas, overlays,
um any special special area plans, or
[7:48] previously approved developments that
would prevent development on this
[7:51] property.
These site conditions provide the
[7:54] foundation for review for proposed lot
layout and the townhome development
[7:58] shown on the following slides.
[8:03] The tentative subdivision would divide
the property into four residential lots.
[8:07] The net area ranges from approximately
25 um 121 to 4,374
[8:13] square foot with lot widths ranging from
approximately 36 to 61 feet.
[8:19] The residential mixed zone requires a
minimum lot area of 2,500 square foot
[8:24] and a minimum width of 20 for townhomes,
and all four lots meet or exceed these
[8:28] standards.
[8:31] Access will be provided through an
existing 30-foot wide access and utility
[8:35] easement from South 12. The plan shows
24-foot wide shared private private
[8:40] driveway.
Each dwelling would have
[8:43] also have two off-street parking spaces
located outside the shared travel area.
[8:49] At this stage, the commission is is
determining whether the proposal
[8:53] proposed layout can comply with the
development code. The access criteria
[8:57] are identified as met with conditions
because the access easement and a
[9:02] maintenance agreement for the shared
improvements must be completed before
[9:04] the final plat.
[9:09] The proposed The proposal includes four
attached townhomes or row rowhouse
[9:13] dwellings. This types of development is
allowed in the RM zone through an
[9:17] administrative review process.
The criteria required for the
[9:21] development to comply with the use and
dimension standards of the zone. The
[9:25] proposed lots meet with the minimum area
and width requirements as discussed on
[9:29] the previous slides, and the final
building permits also must demonstrate
[9:33] compliance with the setbacks, lot
coverage, building heights, garage
[9:36] opening standards before permits are
issued. For that reason, this criteria
[9:40] is identified as met with conditions.
The proposal provides two off-street
[9:45] parkings for each dwelling for the total
of eight. Those spaces will remain
[9:49] unused usable and cannot obstruct the
private shared driveway.
[9:52] The remaining criteria addressing
landscaping, screening, lighting, sites,
[9:56] and other features will be addressed
through our engineering design standard
[10:00] reviews.
[10:03] Each existing public water and sanitary
sewer facilities are available to serve
[10:08] the development.
Each lot will have independent water
[10:11] service and sanitary sewer laterals.
Final locations, connections, um will be
[10:16] handled through our city's permit
process.
[10:19] The proposed stormwater system will
discharge east through the private
[10:22] off-site drainage route to the existing
system in Strawberry Lane.
[10:27] Before final plat approval, the
applicant must obtain and record the
[10:29] necessary drainage easements and secure
any required approval for connecting to
[10:33] the receiving system.
[10:40] The Lebanon Fire Department also
reviewed the proposal and final plans
[10:43] must comply with the fire code um and
any other applicable fire life safety.
[10:48] In summary, the proposed use is allowed
in the RM zone and the four lots meet
[10:52] the dimension standards, access,
parking, and public facilities.
[10:58] The remaining engineering and fire
requirements can be addressed through
[11:01] proposed conditions. The draft order
contains the criteria by criteria
[11:06] findings based on those findings and the
material that agency comments staff
[11:09] recommends approval of both the
administrative review and the tentative
[11:13] subdivision.
And that concludes my presentation and
[11:16] I'm available for questions.
>> All right. Thank you, commissioners. Do
[11:21] you have any questions for staff before
we open the public hearing?
[11:27] » I have one question just cuz I can't
figure it out on the map.
[11:31] Which lot is the flag attached to?
Is it the back one? Like lot
[11:37] four?
[11:44] And if you guys can't answer that, I'm
sure Mr. Van
[11:47] » be I'm assuming it's lot four, but that
might be a
[11:50] The property lines aren't dictate
obvious on that.
[11:56] » I have a similar
larger lot
[12:02] Um the larger lot lot four.
The extension of the driveway and the
[12:07] access road, is that buildable space at
the end there?
[12:13] » It would depend on setbacks and their
orientation, but there'll be required
[12:17] setbacks of the property lines depending
on where those property lines are.
[12:20] » But does that belong to the larger lot?
>> It looks like it.
[12:23] » like
>> Like yeah.
[12:24] » I was just curious. Thanks.
[12:29] » All right. If there are no further
questions, I'll open up the public
[12:33] hearing and welcome the applicant to
come forward and provide testimony.
[12:41] » [clears throat]
>> Good evening.
[12:43] Chairperson, commissioners, staff,
legal counsel.
[12:49] » [laughter]
>> My name is Brian Vendetta, 63 East Ash
[12:52] Street, Lebanon, Oregon.
Um
[12:56] Shannon did such did such a fine job of
summarizing the proposal. I think if I
[13:01] were to
tell you what I was prepared to tell
[13:05] you, I'd duplicate everything she said.
So, with that, I think I'll jump right
[13:08] in and ask answer Mr. Kennedy's
question. The lot four is
[13:13] the owner of the flag, and then there's
a 30-ft easement that extends across the
[13:19] entire flag portion all the way to the
east property line. And that easement
[13:23] [clears throat] extension along with the
existing 20-ft PUE that's over the sewer
[13:27] line that's existing would render that
small portion at the end of the private
[13:31] lane non-buildable just because it's
encumbered with with easements.
[13:36] Um
maybe go a little further than I need
[13:40] to, but we strategically made that lot
larger because my client's pursuing
[13:44] buying the property to the east. Um so
he would
[13:49] then continue the extension and create
more lots
[13:53] in that property as well.
Um
[13:57] with that said
we've read through, understand all of
[14:00] the conditions as proposed, and we
accept them as written
[14:04] and would ask that you would approve the
subdivision and administrative review
[14:09] for the townhomes this evening.
And I'd be more than happy to answer any
[14:13] questions.
[14:18] » All right.
Thank you.
[14:21] » All right. Thank you.
[14:26] » The hearing's now open for members of
the public to speak in favor of the
[14:29] application.
[14:34] Um we don't have anybody online, I'm
assuming.
[14:37] So, seeing none, I will open up the
members for members of the public to
[14:42] speak in opposition of the application.
Seeing none.
[14:47] Um the applicant
uh does not need to provide a rebuttal.
[14:54] Um okay. So, seeing no further comments
or questions from the applicant for the
[14:59] applicant, I'll now close the public
hearing.
[15:02] All further discussion will be limited
to the planning commission and staff.
[15:09] So, based on the testimony and staff
report, do we
[15:13] how do we feel about the criteria?
>> I think they've been met.
[15:22] » All right. Would anyone like to make a
motion? Oh,
[15:26] » I think Rosemary I just what you said
were looking at buying more property to
[15:30] the east. I assume the east is
at the end of the street and
[15:35] I just want to make
sure in my mind that if we
[15:40] approve something like
this are we locking ourselves into
[15:46] some further development that
may not
[15:52] I assume we're not.
>> No.
[15:54] » We are not.
>> No.
[15:56] » We have code to to restrict access per
how many dwelling units and so they will
[16:01] have to meet that criteria in our code.
And it will be its own application to
[16:06] come back to us depending on the level
that they provide.
[16:12] All right.
Any other questions, comments?
[16:16] Would anyone like to make a motion?
[16:22] » I move that the Planning Commission
approve applications for AR-26-07
[16:27] and S-26-04
and adopt the draft order as presented
[16:33] by staff.
>> All right. Do we have a second?
[16:36] » I'll second.
>> All right. All those in favor?
[16:40] » Say I.
>> I.
[16:41] » I.
>> All those opposed?
[16:44] All right. Motion passes.
Thank you.
[16:50] All right. We'll move on to commission
business and comments if there are any.
[16:59] No.
Okay.
[17:02] Um in September there will be no
Planning Commission meeting and the next
[17:06] regular scheduled meeting is for October
21st.
[17:10] So this meeting is now adjourned at 6:17
p.m.