Talent Planning Commission Meeting by taoyni

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 5

									MINUTES
City of Talent Planning Commission — Regular Meeting
20 December 2007 — 6:30 P.M.
Talent Community Center, 206 E. Main Street

I.       Call to Order

Chair Lamb called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M.

II.      Roll Call

Commissioners Present: .................. Cynthia Care, Teresa Cooke, Cody Dalpra, Sherman
                                          Lamb, Joi Riley
Commissioners Absent: .................. Frank Falsarella, Peter Hille
Advisory Board Present: ................. None
Advisory Board Absent: .................. Charles Cherry, Carol Malcolm
Council Liaisons: .............................. Bill Cecil, Brian Roberts, Bob Wilson
Staff Present: ..................................... Betty Wheeler, Lester Naught
Others Present: ................................. Kurt Knudsen, City Attorney

There was a quorum and due notice posted.

III.     Brief Announcements

Adam announced that Commission elections would be held on 1/24/2008.

IV.      Approval of 11/29/07 Minutes

Riley noted a correction for page 11, paragraph one: stating that references to berms and
screening along the railroad were standards in the TSP, not just personal opinion.

Motion: Dalpra moved to approve the Minutes of 11/29/2007 as amended. Riley seconded
and the motion carried.

V.       Public Comments on Non-Agenda Items

There were none.
                                                              City of Talent – Planning Commission minutes
                                                                                         20 December 2007
                                                                                                    Page 2

VI.        Public Hearing (quasi-judicial) on an application for a 39-acre, 143-unit resi-
           dential planned unit development subdivision located off Belmont Road and
           south of the railroad. Tabled at 11/29 meeting.

Staff report: Attorney Kurt Knudsen noted that the question of access remains problematic.
He stated that an easement for a secondary emergency access on taxlot 900 had not yet been
legally secured, although there was potential for obtaining an easement either through ―ad-
verse possession‖ or ―easement by implication.‖

Knudsen highlighted development challenges such as approval for a railroad crossing that
must be obtained from the railway company as well as from ODOT. He noted that there
was no way of knowing at this time whether the applicant could secure the rights of ease-
ment and approval for a rail crossing, but he again indicated that in his opinion, it was possi-
ble.

Knudsen talked about the phasing of the project in relation to the Council’s condition for
annexation; namely, unrestricted public access. He said it is a ―Catch-22‖ situation, in that
the one was dependent upon the other. He noted that the PUD process could support phas-
ing, but he emphasized that his opinion was an inclination rather than an assured legal posi-
tion. He stated that there was no LUBA precedent identified at this time.

Lamb asked about the process to obtain an easement. Knudsen noted that Circuit Court
would be an appropriate venue to decide the issue. He described procedures that the Court
would most likely engage in to determine findings of fact, and the rendering of a ruling.
Adam disagreed, stating that the applicant would apply to the County for access via the old
―Pacific Stage Road.‖ The County would determine whether or not it had the right grant
access. The crossing application would be a separate matter.

Lamb questioned whether the Commission could condition a requirement for legal right to
the access. Adam noted that it was clear that taxlot 900 could not develop unless an addi-
tional full access point was obtained. He said the Commission could condition the require-
ment for the additional access point. Adam reiterated that the approvals or permits from the
County and ODOT must be secured to incorporate the County right-of-way.

Lamb emphasized the City Council’s mandate that the annexation of taxlot 900 must include
a public secondary access. He suggested that any motion for approval include the same pro-
vision. Knudsen agreed.

Dalpra requested additional clarity regarding the effect on density should taxlot 900 remain
undeveloped. Adam explained that the development plan showed some 74 lots1 on the 12-
acre annexed parcel (taxlot 900). Should that piece remain undeveloped, the project density
for the larger, 26-acre parcel (taxlot 1001) would be significantly low for urban development.

Lamb stated he would like to poll the Commission to see how the meeting time should best
be spent: if the consensus were to approve, then they should work on bolstering the condi-

1
    Staff double-checked this figure. There are, in fact, 71 lots in taxlot 900 and 72 in taxlot 1001.
City of Talent – Planning Commission minutes
20 December 2007
Page 3

   tions of approval; if the consensus were to deny, then they should work on making good
   findings.

   Lamb began. He stated that after extensive review of all relevant material from the applica-
   tion material, staff reports, legal opinion, and findings, as well as the zoning criteria, and
   commentary from other sources, it was his opinion that the proposed development was con-
   sistent with the Railroad District Master Plan. He noted that the density criteria and the agricul-
   tural buffering remained issues of concern. He compared commentary by Sydnee Dreyer2
   and John Adam stating that they differed when considering whether to exclude portions of
   the proposed open space (that designated for hiking trails) from the density calculations, and
   that in his opinion, the applicant ―should not be discouraged or punished by removal‖ of the
   land from the calculations. Lamb pointed out that his position on the issue was in agreement
   with recommendations by staff.

   Lamb talked about agricultural buffering, noting again his experience that buffering would
   never completely eliminate conflicts between uses. He stated that the criteria instead should
   be measured against what would be appropriate for the specific circumstances. He felt that
   the applicant’s proposal for a 40-foot setback with berming and staggered trees would be
   adequate with added condition that there be appropriate fencing.

   Riley said the applicant had not met the burden of proof for sufficient access. She noted that
   the secondary access as proposed was outside of the City’s jurisdiction, and that the Council
   requirement for 24-hour legal access had not been adequately addressed. Her interpretation
   of the Council condition was that the secondary access must be a street that complies with
   City standards for right-of-way, paving, and other improvements. Riley also expressed con-
   cern about relying on conditions that could be overlooked in future processes, such as in
   review of the detailed development plan. Cooke agreed, adding that there were too many
   deviations from standards to condition for approval. She expressed concern about a locked
   gate providing sufficient access under emergency conditions.

   Dalpra also noted concern about conditioning for access, stating that he feared that a half-
   built development could result if the secondary access issue got tied up in court. He ques-
   tioned the clarity of the zoning regulations with regard to density calculations, but stated that
   he would accept staff’s calculations. Care also cited access as the determining factor against
   approval.

   Lamb suggested proceeding with findings of fact for denial of the application based on the
   apparent consensus regarding the application.

   Cooke referred to Article 12, Section 83 of the zoning code, finding that some lots would not
   have street frontage—specifically, those 14 units that would be built around the wetlands.
   She found that some of the proposed street grades violated provisions of the street design
   standards. Riley agreed, and also expressed dissatisfaction with the density calculations when

   2
       She is the attorney for some of the neighbors opposing the development.
   3
       Adam noted that the current, correct code citation for “Article 12, Section 8” is “8-3J.126.”
                                                      City of Talent – Planning Commission minutes
                                                                                 20 December 2007
                                                                                            Page 4

factoring in the steep slope requirements, and when considering the usability of the pro-
posed open spaces.

Cooke objected to the number of on-street parking spaces, stating that according to her cal-
culations there would be 62 parking spaces for 143 units. She commented that there should
be provisions for public parking for people who use the trails. She stated that in her opinion,
the density bonus requested was excessive and not sufficiently balanced by beneficial trade-
offs. She objected to the density proposed for the lower slopes, stating that in her opinion,
the Railroad District Master Plan mandated a lesser density for that area. Cooke raised a query
about the ODOT’s commentary regarding the trigger for a left-hand turn lane at Creel Road
and Highway 99.

There followed further discussion about interpretations of the zoning code, and the basis for
denial. Riley suggested that staff be directed to write the findings, based on the points hig-
hlighted. Adam noted that staff normally drafted the final order and the Chair reviewed and
signed it without further comment by the Commission, but that in this case the Commission
could conduct the review prior to signing.

Riley asked whether lack of assurance that permitting approvals would be forthcoming could
be cited as a finding. Adam replied that it was not necessary for concept plan approval.

Motion: Cooke moved to deny PUD 07-01 based on the reasons cited, with the direction
that Commission would review the final order prior to signing. Care seconded and the mo-
tion carried 4–1 with Chair Lamb voting against.

Adam asked that the Planning Commission schedule 10 January 2008 to be the regular meet-
ing for the month in order to review the findings in a timely manner. It was agreed that the
PUD Revision Subcommittee would exchange meetings times to 24 January 2008.

VII.   Discussion of new regulations for processing annexation applications.

Adam presented a first draft of new regulations to govern annexations. In response to a
question by Riley, Adam noted that the general model for the proposed standards came
from Ashland. He reported that Ashland Planner Bill Molnar had reported general satisfac-
tion with the regulations. Adam said he wanted to provide a starting place for discussion
about annexation.

VIII. Comments from the Commission

Riley recommended a review of Commission goals in conjunction with the election of the
new Chair and Vice-Chair. She suggested also a review of proposed Rules of Order.

There followed a brief discussion of whether the Vice-Chair was automatically the Chair for
the upcoming year.

Dalpra stated that he would like to clarify the density calculations regarding steep slopes,
useable lands, and density bonuses. Lamb noted that the provisions for agricultural buffers
City of Talent – Planning Commission minutes
20 December 2007
Page 5

   should also be addressed. Adam reported that the Council wanted to see some changes made
   to the regulations governing fences and hedges. He suggested that the internal goals set
   priorities for those areas that need to be clarified or addressed.

   Councilor Roberts reported that the City Council has asked that the Commission address
   policy regarding neighborhood associations. He said that a nascent neighborhood association
   had been brought to the attention of the Council that established large geographic bounda-
   ries, bringing up issues regarding properties outside the City limits with regard to proper no-
   ticing for public hearings and others.

   VI.     Adjournment

   There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, the meeting was
   adjourned at 7:53 P.M.



   Date ______________



   ________________________________                  ________________________________
   John Adam, Secretary                              Chair Teresa Cooke




   The minutes are not a verbatim record. They have been condensed and paraphrased to reflect the
   discussions and decisions made. Audiotapes are held by the City to provide clarification if required.

								
To top