Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

okay let's go ahead and call the meeting of the Lebanon Planning Commission order ask you be standing for a flag salute pleaseed Al to the flag of the United States of America the for it stands Nation indivisible and jce for all and Kelly you want call the rooll sure commissioner Thompson commissioner Miller commissioner Malloy is absent commissioner Angel for is absent commissioner Fountain is absent commissioner Baxter here commissioner Bashers here Vice chair gar karaski here and Sher Robertson here okay I assume everybody's had a chance to review the minutes from December 18th uh any additions corrections to the minutes okay then seeing none or hearing none uh the minutes will stand approved as presented uh we have one public hearing tonight uh planning file ci-24 d01 uh and my understanding is we don't have any legal reading we do not this is a legislative proceeding and so we can proceed without the normal quasi judicial hearing procedures okay and so there's no export take on fla or anything of that that needs to be disclosed um with that then we are we will pause we are stuck apies everybody

unuse 0 I broke it well we can just do it without video see if it'll Shar okay does that make sense yeah I think so okay correct me if I screw it up all right then with that uh we're good to go all right then we will open Planning file c d 2401 and I'm going to turn over for to staff for staff report apologies for technical difficulties everybody uh so before you tonight is a code interpretation of the Lebanon development code uh an application was presented before the city for the city to interpret whether or not recreational Trails were permitted within the low density residential Zone um for the interpretation um first of all the interpretation needs to identify that go um the we have a couple of things to consider a the city has an adopted Trails master plan um the trails master plan identifies planned uh and proposed Trails throughout the entire city within all of our development uh all of our zones uh including Trails uh on street and off Street uh within the low density residential Zone uh there are two specific Trail segments that are within the uh low density residential

Zone that are not on uh public sidewalk areas um and then the city uh adopted this Trails master plan it was being developed somewhere uh between 2007 and 2009 uh the city and during that time ALS also was in the process of doing an entire development code update um as we were uh updating our development code uh for compliance with the new comprehensive plan that was adopted in 2004 um and so that development code process was completed in 2008 and so these documents were being developed time um and and so uh you have the comprehensive plan the development code and our Trails master plan Trails master plan was adopted by the city council city council has obviously implemented the trails master plan over the last couple years Leon development code has been obviously implemented over the last couple of years uh and so it's our job to try to identify how to mesh it all together um and so the first item is for consideration um when we're looking at a land use determination um and code interpretation uh right now the RL Zone identifies two different areas of recreational Trails uh you have a specific designation of recreational trails and then you also have the parks open space and recreational uses designation our uh code specifically identifies Parks as including and specifically calling out public Trails maintained by the city as part of the park system um and so therefore it is categorized under parks open space and recreational uses and then you also have the recre rational Trails designation as well um and so we're looking at um section 16.02 010e which talks about consistency with

plans and laws and it says each procedure um uh shall uh initiated under this code shall be consistent with the city's adopted comprehensive plan as implemented by this code it's adopted Master plans and applicable local state and federal laws and regul ations So within our staff report that was provided we identified several areas in which the adopted master plan itself is consistent with the comprehensive plan and how the trail alignments generally speaking that are identified within the trails master plan implement the comprehensive plan being located generally along the alignment of waterways such and such like that um and so the the two areas specifically Al within the low density residential Zone specifically align with some of those comprehensive plan designations as well um so there are no specific comprehensive plan goals or policies that specifically prohibit Parks or recreational facilities being within the low density residential Zone um and the trails master plan obviously specifically highlights that those trails are are aligned within those areas as well um and the trails master plan obviously complies with that that consistency section that says that the the trails master plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan um so it aligns with that section 16210 e um where the master plan and comprehensive plan align uh appropriately um we also like I said have that definition of of the city where it has the city parks definition in Recreation areas where that is the most specific definition where we have uh of city parks and recreation uses um so a city park means all city-owned uh and maintained Parks playgrounds and

public Recreation areas and Recreation areas is very clearly defined in there which means an area within a public park and it specifically says as well as public Trails maintained by the city for public use and so it is encapsulated within the definition of a city park use that public trails are Incorporated with that in its entirety So based on the definitions um recreational Trails can be considered as parks and open space and recreational uses in our opinion um and so when you have the the consideration of the land use table where it identifies other public uses such as Parks and Recreation facilities um open space and pedestrian amenities um and it specifically calls out uh uh when it's faciliated with adoption of facil when it is associated with implementing adopted facility plans as well it seems like that most aligns appropriately with uh Parks uh and trails and fac and uh the facilities for Trails as well there's also specifically section 16.02 .010 that specifically talks about when you are doing interpretations like these um you have the most restrictive uh interpretation that should be applied when there is a conflict within the code it is a longer language than just use the most in uh restrictive interpretation though it specifically says that where the code imposes greater restrictions than those imposed or required by other rules or regulations the most restrictive or that imposing a higher standard shall be shall be the thing that governs so the trails master plan provides the higher imposed standard the trails

master plan identifies the clear alignment that the city entail in intends for the alignment of trails within the city itself it identifies how those trails should be designed it identifies the types of amenities that should be provided along those Trails uh so on and so forth so a higher standard of of development uh and intentional review is identif ified within the master plan itself and so when you're incorporating the fact that when you're looking at consistency of the code master plans in consistency with the comprehensive plan and the higher standard shall govern master plan itself provides that higher standard we believe that since the master plan itself identifies that trails should be intended within the the low density residential Zone and since our own definitions include Trails as part of the park system that the use of the uh other public uses such as parks and recreational facilities open spaces and P pedestrian amenities uh should be utilized as the appropriate use designation when considering public Trails um which would allow for uh recreational trails to be included within the low density residential Zone um subject to either a conditional use permit or if it's implementing the master plan subject to an administrative review um there is also a Luba case that we included as part of the record itself uh that does uh further solidify the consideration of trails to be included as part of the park system itself um where the the luic case identifies that trails are to be considered as parks and so that further solidifies the consideration um that that is the most

appropriate uh use and determination so um that that generally I identifies how we thought through the process um making sure that we are honoring the master plan that has been approved by Council and has been adopted how it implements the comprehensive plan um and how it intends for trails to be implemented um and uh how it's laid out in our report um obviously you do have uh public comment that has also been provided to you um and uh we're happy to answer any questions that you might have associated with that comment gr do you have anything you want to add I'm sure I will throughout the course of this but not right now okay any questions what's it uh what we're considering what the process is uh we'll have opportunity for discussion later as far as the specifics but any questions for Kelly Tina look you look like you have a question okay all right seeing none then we will open the public testimony portion ask the applicant to come forward state your name sign in please um because of the nature of our hearing tonight we're going to do this just a little bit differently um we're not necessarily talking about an applicant in favor of and an opposition to like we normally have before so what we're going to ask the testimony to do is uh if you agree with the testimony uh that you're about to hear from the applicant then we will have you identify as such if you agree

with the testimony of the city the way the interpret ation I should say of the city then we will have you identify as such we're going to leave the public hearing open uh through the remainder of the hearing and give the applicant a final opportunity to rebut after all conversation after all discussion has been completed so then we will close the public testimony after the final rebuttal okay so the final question then is there any objection to the process and the notices that's been sent I'm curious why it's elevated to a legislative decision opposed to administrative or quas judicial as it started out because the City attorney wasn't able to look at it until more recently what and I'm not sure it's elevated is the correct word I think it's uh de-escalated would be a better better word but it's pretty clear to me after looking at the uh application between quasa judicial and legislative that this is an application that would be applicable to multiple properties throughout the city and in fact outside the city um as it relates to the trail plan so there's no doubt that in in my mind it's legislative as opposed to um quas judicial um at the same time I I did approach you beforehand and and I thought you agreed with that curious to hear the explanation for that and then was noticing provided for legislative poos to quaza judicial and I believe it was and that's why we talked earlier today and and I'm getting a nod that yes the notice for a legislative hearing was provided okay and and that's also why I asked if there is a specific objection to any notice that was provided that i' we'd like to address it and address it now okay so for the record my name is

Laura Lorac I live out for 50 years let me pause you for just a quick second is is the process agreeable with you uh it's a change of events I haven't really considered all the implications for it but at this moment I do not have an objection I'm sorry I didn't hear the I didn't hear that I do not have an objection at this moment but this is just news that's just been presented so I haven't really do you need time are you offering a continuance of the hearing not a continuance of the hearing but if you wanted time right now to think and consider I just didn't want to rush you yeah no I'm F to move forward with my testimony okay okay and does the Planning Commission understand the change in process and you're okay with that okay can you explain the difference between judicial and legislative to me please sure so legislative is more General in nature it's it would be a policy a a law an ordinance that applies generally throughout the city uh a quasa Judicial generally would be referring to a specific property or a small group of properties um the difference in how the hearing is held is that a quasa Judicial is more like a trial generally um we have an applicant we then have we don't have you know we don't Square people in we don't cross-examine but at the same time we have an applicant that has the burden of proof we have a opposition to that and then we have a rebuttal and basically then it's it's in and and this Planning Commission has to sit as a judge more than a law lawmaking body right like the organ legislature right the organ legislature they don't have to declare every time they have a bias or they have they know they're coming in with a bias they don't have to declare if they have a conflict of interest for the most part they all have conflicts of interest so it's different it's basically the difference between judicial but it's quasa judicial and legislative thank

you okay so my apology for interrupting that's okay thank you so again my name is Laura Lorac 450 Walnut Street here in Lebanon um so I have just um kind of condensed my thoughts into a more concise version so this is kind of more or less a repeat of what you've already saw um and the intent of my presentation this evening is just to provide a brief overcap of that and and not read directly um so I'm here to oppose the city staff's interpretation which essentially reclassifies recreational Trails as Parks through an administrative interpretation rather than a formal Zone code Amendment this interpretation directly contradicts expressed language in the development code that prohibits Rec ation trails in the low density Zone and I think I'll just pause there to say that I'm not opposed to having trails in a residential Zone they could be appropriate there but how the code is written currently they are prohibited and um I'll kind of walk through my thoughts on um how I counter the city's position so the first claim the city makes is that trails are parks so let me walk through how they've arrived at that they look for a code section outside of the development code that describes a city park that City Park definition that's in the park chapter not the zoning code references the term recreational area both of these definitions are again in a Park section outside the development code if you look in the glosser section of the development code it explicitly defines a recreational trail and it also defines a city park these terms recreational trail and park are later referenced in every development table throughout all zones of of the development code so it's clear in my mind that the definition in the development code is referring specifically to a use categorize that's in a trail these uses are either

permitted or not permitted by a certain review types um and they do different differentiate between parks in the trail system so the explicit language of the development code clearly calls out that there is a difference between this and staff's interpretation counters this directly staff's second claim is that the trail master plan demonstrates intent um so essentially a master plan is a long range Vision it outlines goals and policies for the city those goals and policies are implemented through the development code the development code is the actual Trigger or the law that are applied to development you cannot look to a goal or a policy to say this is what's permitted in a certain Zone that's the intent and the purpose of this um development code so essentially the comprehensive plan provides as a guidance while the zoning laws are the tools that used to implement if a master plan proposes a change that conflicts with a zoning code the appropriate process is a code amendment to change the development code to match the master plan in this in this Ence the parks plan and then the trails master plan the third claim that the city makes is that Trails have been developed in the residential Zone again expressing that some sort of intent or precedent allows them to bypass what's clearly prohibited in the development code the city refers to several different Trails throughout the Comm Community which I point out in my testimony are essentially public sidewalks many of these public sidewalks were actually constructed as part of a road they're a purpose um and they they predate the actual Trails master plan so when these are referred to on the trail master plan they're essentially connectors to develop recreational Trails um in other parts of the community if you apply the city's logic then these sidewalks should be treated as a park so park rules and

regulations would say things are prohibited like hours of operation smoking things of this nature um which is obviously a flaw in the interpretation to classify them the same way as a park the city uses a Luba case to argue that Trails can be classified in the park what they fail to note is that the park in this case the recreational trail or definition did not exist so as a determination was made is there was not clear guidance in their development code to say that there is a specific use in that community in their case they had to make an interpretation because the definition didn't exist so this is not a clear case that establishes that trails in the city of Lebanon which are clearly defined in the glossery of the development code should be confused with parks that are also clearly defined in development code so the key policies um in the comprehensive plan also say that zoning ordinances when need to be implemented should be done through a formal legislation meaning a code Amendment not an interpretation policy 8 requires periodic review and updates so when conflicts are noticed City staff should take the opportunity to update their development code through a code amendment process it's been 16 years since development code was written in its most recent format in 2008 this error existed and in that 16-year period the city has not taken the time to update this to carry out the vision of the trails master plan I'll also point out there is legal precedence um for the position that I'm taking so I point out some cases that also were before Luba and Luba rulle that in this case when there's expressed language in the development code that you can rely on such as the definitions I noted in the glossery of the development code and as they're defined in the use sections that

um you can't counter the express language you can't make up a definition that fits to beet your intent uh to carry out a purpose so with that I'll just say some some closing statements for it the city is essentially distorting definitions to justify a desired outcome they want to perit trails in the residential Zone while that might be a good idea idea this is not the mechanism to do so the city's neglected for 16 years to formally amend the development code I implore the commission today to encourage the staff to actually go through that process by denying this code interpretation I Ur the commission to reject the interpretation and require that a FAL Zone Amendment takes place uh I wanted to go ahead and just add a little bit of something my I'm Scott Lorac 45 wet Street um I just again wanted to restate that we're not against Trails that's not the intent of this you all heard Kelly or sorry staff drown on for 10 minutes trying to explain their process and how they went through and came to do this determination rather than just update your code that's all okay any questions all right um then there will be an opportunity for ble after all discussion is completed uh there may be questions in and is there anybody else with us wishes to testify and if you do please State whether you're agreeing with the city's interpretation or the applicants interpretation

look like I'm first okay go ahead and sign in if you haven't already state your name you bet you first of all thank you for being here and serving the community I'm Rodell I live at 1955 River Road in Lebanon and I'm the bill Lebanon Trails board president and have been since its Inception in 2005 um just a couple things I I am uh in support of the staff's uh report and decision on this um and uh there's a little bit of background first of all may I hand out trail maps that show you with the trail system I have a few extras and that the main reason for that is just so you can see the scope and if you want to know where that zone is we can we can point that out um it's a small part of a project we're trying to build so a little bit of uh history um in December the build lemon Trails applied to Lynn County for a conditional use permit to excuse me a permit to build a trail which we call the Georgia Pacific Mill Race Trail because it's property that that we were able to uh to get donated to be dond trails from Georgia Pacific uh it's a Mill Race it's it used to have a a wooden Dam across the South Sanam river right below the East gr Street bridge and it was taken out by a flood I'm not sure the year but long time ago and at that time that Mill Race was abandoned and George Pacific is the was the current owner before Bill lemon Trails so we applied for the conditional use permit it was uh it was awarded uh and and then uh nimi uh LLC uh they appealed it and we went in front of

the commission again and uh they um approved the conditional use permit out uh and denied the appeal um on the 24th of this month is the last chance to appeal that uh decision to the uh Lind County uh Board of Commissioners and U so a lot of history here and talking basically about the same thing um the trails have been being built in in Lebanon in in the residential density zones for a long time and as a building Planning Commission you know that we've been getting a lot of three-story high density uh units uh with very little green space uh built in our community along with the the the ability to build more dense um buildings on even residential uh zones and in low density residential zon zones so uh my point is that um we really need to build the trails to have give people a place to to get away from the the highdensity environment to be able to explore the the Greenways and the rivers and uh and the lakes that we are so thankful to have in our community any questions any questions for Rod okay thank you thank you is there anybody else wishing to testify okay sing New Movement or no movement I should say um then we will open it up to conversation between staff and Planning Commission uh again leaving the public testimony portion

open you want to do that well have normally how we do but we wait until afterwards it's up to you all right okay so um questions for staff I'm curious what the implications of this code interpretation have longterm so code interpretations are there to interpret the code as it's written today code interpretations are there to clarify the city's position on how the code is to be interpreted until such time as codes are amended um in reviewing the different sections that the the applicant has identified where recreational trails are identified as um the areas in which they're they're noted as as listed within the development code um they are listed in the same way as the open space uh use that that we are defining um as as is the most appropriate based off of our interpretation of what the the arc use is more appropriate use as um so the alignment is incredibly uh aligned uh so I don't think that there is a a large impact in terms of development itself is there an option to a different type of application that would lead to a different type of an evaluation yes and so we're before you tonight with a code interpretation application because that is the application in which the applicant chose

to apply the applicant could have applied for a code amendment to amend the development code um the the city has not done so we haven't had a capacity or an inent or a purpose at this point in time to to modify the development code um inconsistencies occur um and interpretations have to happen on a regular basis and make modifications to the code on a on a on a regular basis um an application for Amendment to the development code could happen at any point in time and the think could choose to do that um or or this is the application that's been put in front of us I would also add that it's not unexpected nor unusual to have an ambiguity or a conflict within this many different things that have done that have occurred over different periods of time right um it's hard enough just to make sure the actual code itself is try is consistent right um as you change different things with the master plans and with the with the overall um um um documents that guide us um It's Not Unusual to discover that there's there's you know what's here doesn't seem to jive with what's here so that's where we come to this body and then ultimately potentially the city council to say well what's the intent and what's what's uh what's really um what the city wants to occur under this situation um and in those regards when you're as long as you're not violating um a very distinct um uh uh zoning clear either clear intent or violating a very clear understanding our law where there's not an ambiguity or not a a discrepancy um the uh higher courts are going to give great uh discretion to the to the local government to interpret its own code but that's not staff's

interpretation it's this body's interpretation and the city ultim or potentially the city council's interpretation what ke what what Kelly's done and what the what the staff has done is giv you our best our best uh uh interpretation of what we believe the intent the policy right the policy intent and this this again the the elected bodies or the appointed bodies dictate what the policy is but we've what we've attempted to do is give you an interpretation of we what we believe to be the policy of this of the uh of this board and of the city council as to what this means but ultimately it's this body or or ultimately the city council's uh determination of what that policy was and what this means and then ultimately if if we're going to get great discretion from the higher courts to uh uh to interpret our own codes that was my next question was just the happen stance that there is some ambiguity but that's not unreasonable it's likely to see that in any case I think we heard a really compelling argument but if you look at that outside of interpreting the code as it is right now we're able to make that interpretation without considering the ambiguity okay other questions so when I was reading the code trying to understand this and all the information I noted that there were other types of parks that were classified separately maybe the BMX park and the skate park and I'm trying to rectify in my mind why we're saying we can treat these different which I mean it makes C certainly makes sense to me than the recreational trail and why we're saying well the recreational trail is fitting within this park classification but then we have this

other classification for other types of parks that don't fit in the park so it is there can you illuminate that for me or so you specifically called out like a BMX par yeah I that's you mean there the the skate park yeah there there was a line about BMX and skate and I'm not sure I remember it correctly but it was certainly in a category by itself but I would consider a par was it something where it said you could somebody could build a BMX or a skate park in this zone is that and we we don't have one but you could and that's what you're referring to cuz I don't specifically know what you're referring to yeah I and I didn't bring the code with your computer to pull it up and find it again and again you could have a park that's not a city park I mean you could have right you could have some you could have a private BMX park you could have a private skate park I mean and and you could call it a park but it doesn't mean it's a city park is that make sense yeah I get that I I should have brought it and dug it no and and I want to answer it I just don't know specifically what you're referring to um I don't know can can we do the search of the code for BMX and I can do my best tell me where it is you know keelly I'll do it okay or or I I can try to do it on the phone I should be able to do it here or skate it was both skate and BMX all right I have 16.03 060 public uses institutional and Civic and let's see what it says about skateboard and BMX Parks um Kelly again 16.03

60 so what I could speak to in in general terms is there are you have like a class one class two and class three skate parks are probably identified as a class 3 use because there's there's different noise levels associated with it there there's different impacts in terms of how they're used and so you have the the differentiation of of how the the use categorization as a class two versus a class three and so sometimes so in any land use category right it may be a a park use but a a different level of attention might need to be put to it and so a specific call out is is identified for for that specifically and so a skate park because of a a higher level of noise or the type of use itself is called out for a a class three categorization that that kind of thing might be the case and so that's why it's called out separately where in this case they're both class two categorizations the the the categorizations that we're looking at they're the same impact they're the same consideration so it's it's Apples to Apples did does that help yeah yeah and she's right the reference to that was just saying what the public use impacts would be and it's a class three okay so okay and that's the only reference to BMX in the code no see I learn something every night too right right is your other questions so I've got maybe a legal question um the Luba

case uh and the ruling from Luba was that specific to the the code of that City yeah and interestingly enough that the two parties were reversed because there was the other party was arguing a code interpretation that C was saying it wasn't allowed but yeah it was the court then uh finding that based on the uh on the presentation that they found that the public Trails fell within the definition and the intent no specific again they found conflict between different Provisions but they found that it was most closely aligned with uh an interpretation that it was it was included within the public park system and does that create case law I don't think it's I don't I I wouldn't say that that case is like you you're going to get versed you know if you don't rule this way I wouldn't go that far um I would say it's instructive as to the procedures and the ability to get to the intent and the goal of of of the overriding uh um the overriding intent of the uh of the not only the code but of the master plans um and and as an example of very specific example in this case as to how they treated a similar situation but but but no I don't think what we we have a judge here and I might ask him but I don't think it would be binding precedent okay um never just lost my other question oh I guess you already answered it your your opinion is that that would apply the same ruling would apply to in our code what I would say is that Luba would use the same analysis to evaluate the code interpretation that this body or the city council brings forward okay all

right thank you and just to make sure I understood um your comment was that in this case the Precedence is through the trails master plan that it is the highest and most restrictive so it's the code section let me pull it up specifically when you're talking about reviewing the most restricted it says where a code imposes great restri greater restrictions than those imposed are requires by required by other rules or regulations the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standard shall govern it says most restrictive or that imposing the higher standard and can I can I can I respond to that as well sure there's there's statutory construction when when lawyers and and when we look at how to interpret um codes and laws and all that kind of stuff we have a a whole list of of that we go through that the courts have set up um that that guide us guide the courts specifically on how to interpret statutes um because as as as as as good as these legis lers are in Oregon um they do leave some ambiguities every once in a while and some uh contradictions so one of the one of the rules of of of construction is and I looked I knew the I knew that I knew what it what it said and what it meant but I could I forgot the Latin term and it's Lex specialis derata Lei generali and what that means is a specific law overrides a general law and that is very common okay so if you have if you have a very specific law that says you have to do this and then you have this General

law that yeah could be interpreted that way you're going to you're going to apply the the specific and it and you even get down into other uh examples of if you have a statute and you have one provision of that statute that specifically says something and you have something else in that statute that could be interpreted to say something else or in contradiction to that you're going to apply this the the one that's very specific and that's not uncommon but what what that does is that is normally encompasses when you're when you're interpreting something that is within the same body of lives for example interpreting two different Provisions within the same code right but when you're looking at we're interpreting different basically different levels and different different overriding principles Master plans and the code and the zone and you know all of these different things I'm not necessarily convinced that that's that relevant to this but that's up to the body to desde okay all right any other questions thoughts or concerns if not then I will invite the applicant to come forward for rebuttal if you so choose okay well thank you so I'll answer some question question that I heard come up so um I think it was Miss Baxter had asked what's the implication of this and on exhibit a I've printed out every reference in the development code that references recreational trail these include tables from every Zone and it it lists recreational trails and Parks separately so everywhere you see the term recreational trail in this instant it would be replaced with parks and any site of um permitted review process that would apply to a

recreational trail would get replaced with what's currently allowed for Parks so in this case in three zones recreational trails are not permitted and um if you apply staff's position and classify them instead as a park that they would now be permitted through a land use process so the Major Impact is allowing recreational Trails where they previously were not permitted to be can I ask you a question what so there's different ways to do this because I know that there's a definition of a recreational trail in in the development code if and we have uh trails that are also listed or referenced in the park system right if the city council wanted to do an ordinance that would amend um our uh the general ordinance on Parks to specifically say that all Trail the the Lebanon trail system is part of the Lebanon Park system would you still have an argument I don't know that hasn't been presented and I haven't thought through it so going back to the presentation um City saff said that there is some sort of discrepancy in the code to me it's very clear there's use tables the use tables list um uses recreational Trails listed out of use it's defined in the development code and there are specific um reviews that are tied to that use so to me there is no inconsistency it's very clear that when you read recreational trail in a use table and you file that across to see is that permitted or by what review type it clearly calls out what that is and staff it's just simply not reading the code as it is written that is not an ambiguity so when they say I had a choice on what type of application to submit I wouldn't submit for zone map Amendment because

the code is very clear on what it says where trails are permitted and where they are not so the only issue and the only reason that this application is before you is because staff is not reading the use tables or the definitions that clearly state recreational trail is a use in every single zone in the city and it's outlined whether they're permitted or by what review type there is no inconsistency the only inconsistency is how staff it looks at this table interprets it I think if the average person was to open a development code and read a table they would come to the same conclusion that I have when we talk about cases and setting case precedent and things of that nature Luba is very discretional when there is a conflict if there is Ambu if you say does fence height include a trellis and staff says yeah that includes a trellis you know Luba or the state would give difference to the city because they're interpreting their code but they do not give difference to the city City when it is clearly expressed and written in the development code and in this case there's a clear definition it's clearly in a use table and this would be a clear remand back to the city so with that I'll close my presentation and answer any questions you might have so so what is the what is the impact of the master plan the parks master plan doesn't that create the ambiguity the policies of the master plan you update your development code if the city wants trails and res in recreational zones or low density zones or other zones that they're prohibited amend the development code and allow that to take place which was which was amended last the development code or the parks master plan I don't think it matters if there's a conflict between your master plan and the development code and those conflict you update what applies the law to the development which is the zoning code if you want to apply the goals and policies of your master plan the development code

is your tool and if it's not correct correct it I have a question for you I know you both said you weren't opposed to Trails but however I just wonder if are you opposed to the specific trail near your property in this case so people that spoke uh in support of the city's position brought up a development specific project development specific project is not the view of this this is looking at a development code and how City interprets it I'm not opposed to a trail that is proposed near my property the trail that is proposed near my property is under the Linn County jurisdiction it has nothing to do with how the city permits Trails the Lin county code prevails the Lin County Trail or code allows public trails to be permitted in their Zone which where this Trail project is located takes place so this amendment has nothing to do with it but it was brought to light to that and if the city is improperly applying their development code then that that's the history of why this has come to be it's brought to my attention it seems like a pretty big oversight find out trails are not even being reviewed when they're even they don't you know there's Trails out there that have been permitted without a land use review at all so it's the fact that City staff is not applying development code in this case um is the reason why I'm bringing up I think they're perfectly appropriate in a low density Zone I think they Pride connections and predominant Zone in your community is low density and it would be appropriate to have a trail that connects parks that are typically in low density zones but if you have to get there by a creative interpretation of your code I don't think that's following the law that's been established and if you want to do it just correct it there's a process City can initiate it it's pretty

straightforward so so if the intent if if if if you're right let's say you're right and and and in what you're at uh proposing and it turns out that the intent or the goal of not only this body but the policymaking goal of the city council is directly in line with what they would be consistent with the staff's uh code interpretation essentially all we're doing is stalling the the implementation of the trails not stopping them I don't understand a question it's not about stalling or stopping a trail it's about in well I mean let's say let's say that okay we we decide that we do have to do this uh uh modification or or Amendment of the of the zoning ordinance and it's very clear that there's substantial support uh to have the trail system included specifically because I you know let's say and again I'm assuming your argument is right and and we have to do that um and they do that that's a process and they go through that process um I guess I'm just trying to figure out what the ultimate gain would be other than not building them now and building them later say the last part again building them it would only be building them later instead of building them now so you're concerned about going through a review process to amend the code might delay don't restate my question my question is is what would be the ultimate result from what a misinterpretation or a zone map Amendment yeah what what would be the result if if I'm making two assumptions I admit that I'm making two assumptions I'm making an assumption that you're right and your argument and I'm making an assumption that the intent of the policy intent of the city council in this board would be that we do want these Trails so if we have to go through that process the only thing we're ending up with is a delay isn't that true I guess in my more legal and code-based brain what I think you're

saying is why not rely on a misinterpretation of the I mean a co- Amendment doesn't have to take long there's public no string requirements but typically they can be done in two to three months and there's no active Trail that's being affected by this that I am aware of so I don't think it would delay anything it would just be simply stopping this process and going through the one that's more appropriate if the community desires trails in that area go through the proper process you would agree that if we're comparing the master plan and the zoning lies that there is an ambiguity I guess I don't understand what you're trying to help me say no but I mean I mean what I'm saying is there if you were to just set the the master park parks master plan and the different the the master plans comprehensive plan and the zoning ordinance next to each other they're not consistent you you what well I think if you would ask staff they would say master plan trails are conceptual and they could move and in this case there's two small sections that are not built that are conceptual that could be built outside the residential zone so it could very well well be the intent of the master plan was not to have it in the residential Zone the only residential Zone where trails are built are public parks and trails and Parks could fall under that Park definition because they're connecting Park amenities there's only two Trails outside of public sidewalks that are not built and their alignment could change the zoning underlying zoning of one of those is a higher Zone where trails are permitted so the master plan may not conflict it's just maybe the zone map or the comprehensive plan of designation of the city has not been updated or the actual alignment is not that specific but if I may to to further your conversation with the land use tables the industrial zone is also identified as an area in which the same conflict

arises with the residential low density Zone and there's a number of off streets trails that are identified as alignment within master plan in the industrial Zone and so then that furthers that the master plan identifies a number of trails not within just a single zone but within a number of zones that aren't align the zoning as it's written so the comprehensive plan in the master plan you could just are aligned I I think the case is if you look at trails in the industrial Zone those were permanent out without land use review so my question is are these really intended to be in these zones or have they just been permitted in that manner and if there is an inconsistency between the master plan reflect the code I can't predict what the city feels is the appropriate designation to this the only process that you can go through that is a zone map or a Zone a development code text Amendment well and it could just everybody was looking at me I don't have any more questions well I guess I guess the only point I could make to add to that is that uh you know fixing the process could just prevent future challenges to it you write your process make it streamline it for the future prevent people from you know having issues down the line yeah I think that's a good point because if the average citizen picked up the development code they're not going to say oh this is table is probably incorrect because we should be looking at the park code section to look at these two definitions to get back to this section and I don't think our position has ever been that we we that there was any intention for these different types of interpretations between the master plan and the zoning to occur they were

pointed out and we appreciate that and again from a city staff position our our what we do is try to make an interpretation that we believe we can propose to the policy makers and you are the policy makers um I want give you that credit but then you also do have a higher Board of policy makers um but at that point um and and I want to thank you for bringing that forward and and bringing these kind of issues forward and having the type of argument and the kind of conversation that we've had tonight I appreciate that because I think it's very fruitful and I think it's it's good for the process um and uh I appreciate the the way you've presented it and the the respectful way you've presented it so I I thank you for that um and uh with that again it's I I I don't like this saying but I I find myself self saying it too often is I don't have a dog in the fight um my job is simply to help uh staff um legally uh provide the interpretation that that staff believes is the appropriate interpretation give what I believe to be the proper legal ramifications uh the review that I think would have if this unfortunately were to have to go to Luba or something like that um the difference that they would give to the to the policy makers in interpreting their own statutes or ordinances um and but but other than that I I think unless there's more questions we've probably probably heard all of the arguments that are have been made and so eloquently made and so well written and laid out in in the written memorandum not only I believe and I'm not taking credit for it because it was Miss Hart that did all of it um as far as the uh uh the code interpretation and and I tried to uh uh assist where I could um as well as the uh the arguments that have been made by Miss Lorac and and I don't know if you wrote any of it but anyways by by Miss Lorac uh in

writing um unless unless you guys think that there's more to be heard as far as evidence or or testimony probably up to the commission don't want to cut you short if you've got more rebuttal no I just wanted to give the commission the opportunity is there anybody else that had any questions or clarifications this will be your last opportunity presumably right thank you I appreciate your time thank you all right thank you with that then we will close the public hearing all further discussion will be amongst the planning Commissioners um so this is a tough one um what we're being asked is whether we affirm the interpretation of the staff in this matter or whether we Den the interpretation of this uh matter so I guess just to let you know there is no specific right and wrong it's more of what your opinion is and what you feel is the the appropriate interpretation uh we're not asked to be perfectly right or perfectly wrong if there is such a thing so what I think I'd like to do uh with planning commission's Comm uh permission is maybe pull each each one of you and see which way you're leaning uh based on what you've heard tonight um and then we will come up with some type of a a decision is that agreeable and I will go first uh I don't mean to Blindside you with it um so if that's okay is that it's like I say this a little bit different are you okay Chris whatever you

want Okay you Okay Lori yeah I'm tinina okay so I guess my opinion is uh it's it's pretty obvious there are some uh uh incongruencies uh in the master plan and in the uh code I believe that the intent uh outweighs the reality and the specifics and it in my opinion the intent of the city was to put together a Trails master plan and a Trails system that benefited the citizens of Lebanon uh and I feel that that's what they have done and continue to do and I think they've done a great job with that um so given the opinion that we come up with tonight uh whether we affirm or deny the interpretation of Staff uh I think at some point we need to take a another look and maybe iron out some of the in congruencies uh but for this interpretation I think the intent uh all down through the years since since a master plan was put in place was honest and true uh looking back hindsight uh has discovered some of those incongruencies that we need to probably take a look at so my opinion at this point in time is to affirm the city's um interpretation Lori you want to go next not really um I feel like it's been quite a bit of time since the revisions have been done I'm not sure to me I can see both sides of the argument I guess so without um um

I agree with Don about taking a look at it later on as well for a further clarification but um maybe I'm just not understanding the depth or the amount of work or something it would take to further drill down and make some revisions but as long as we could um guarantee some way down the line that we revisit it and are able to it again and further detail I guess I appreciate it being brought up um I would agree with Don affirm affirm the city chrisan Kelly can you answer um I just keep going back to Future implications that the interpretation may have um if we give a blanket agreement that recreational Trails is considered a park and allowed in low density what does the application process look like in the future for other Recreation trails that people may want to produce or develop I know we have the master plan so I I believe the intent is good and it's there and there's a plan but what does it look like if any random person wants to say I'd like to create a recreational trail in a low density area it would be identified as the open space parks and recreational amenity use and so it would be subject to a conditional use permit unless it's adopted unless it is implementing the master plan itself which would then be subject to an administrative review okay so it would be pretty ridiculed and looked at closely as far as what the intent in the plan is outside of this master plan correct and code interpretations themselves are meant to provide clarification and a stop Gap until such time as the city has the ability to amend the code to

formalize the CL clarification and remove that ambiguity okay so so this is a a a stop Gap with the understanding that a situation has been brought to the city's intention understanding yes we understand that there there is that ambiguity we are legally required to go through this process because an application has been brought forth before us and so we need to do this but we also recognize that we do need to new boord with providing clarification but we do need to do this process first first because we have an application before us so we need to take the time to do this but we do understand that we are going to have to eventually bring forward a code a modification as well but this comes first because there is the application okay thank you I would be inclined to affirm okay Tina that to affirm that I understand interpretation but I also understand it as being a developer and looking at that they're recommend that we in our code development and but for interpretation wise I can affirm that city is doing okay I spend a lot of time thinking about this because I do like um trails and I I think they do fit in in the low density residential but I read the luo appeel and I read the

code and to me it's straightforward in the code and we bringing in too many other things to make the code work and so I would deny the interpretation okay hey Mike yeah I don't see anything wrong with cleaning up some ambiguities in the code um but I think uh I'm going to lean toward the city has done the job of interpreting the code for the the request the way it should be I'm I'm an affirm with the city you say affirm yeah okay so do you want this put into a formal motion yeah I mean you need to vote okay all right so is anybody prepared to make a motion to affirm the city's interpretation how would you identify the interpretation of what we have proposed language I don't think we have one wow I'm terrible a question I hadn't seen it so I was like probably gonna ask me yeah oh do we have you can use mine okay go ahead somewhere in the back of it right here somebody like to make a motion I will move to approve staff's written code interpretation ci-24

d01 is there a second second okay it's been motion and seconded to approve the interpret staff's interpretation um any further disc session okay then all those in favor of the motion please say I I I and those opposed nay okay motion passes okay um thank you for all your input this was a tough one okay moving on um we have a section in our agenda this says citizen comments if there's anybody with us that would like to address the Planning Commission on items that is not on the agenda this would be the time to do so you ex all right seeing nobody moving toward the microphone then we'll go on to commission business and comments just cleared out didn't they uh we do not currently have anything on our agenda for next month but we do have one currently scheduled for April so you might be off the hook for next month currently we do have the combined meeting but you do have the combined meeting I apologize that it is a noon meeting if you want to blame anybody blame that guy uh hey Kelly Kelly I never looked this up what is the appeal route for that they take it to the city council first or is this something that just goes to the Planning Commission have you looked at it you were going to look it up no that wasn't the one I was looking up I was it was no whether it would go to Luba or circuit court but I didn't know if that stop

it's a standard procedure okay who does it go to it goes I think Luba but I I did see a code interpretation that went to Circuit Court which I can't quite understand so that's what we've done before and Tom could tell you all about that is that the Walmart or which one yeah well there were several of them uh going back to the matter at hand March 26th at noon is the joint Planning Commission city council meeting it is the last one if you want to blame anybody blame this guy I already formally bowed out yeah yeah apologize and is the city BR lunch oh wait that might change the no just kidding yes yeah we've had lunch before haven't we I don't know uh I'll get back to you on that most likely we always have lunch at a lunch meeting yeah we charge 50 bucks a plate but yeah I if I know that some of you guys have work to do and so there is a zoom option I know you probably don't want to drive down from Salem but if you do we'll you're welcome to come it is it is customary for the city manager to bring uh treats and lunch and and provide that may change with our new city manager but I don't know yeah I'm tired guys gonna bring us information back on House Bill 1537 for this meeting yeah I uh things got busy blame him again um just asking I I can speak generally to it that's the mandatory um adjustments right okay yeah yeah sure I can speak generally to it um but I I don't have a formal presentation to it but you guys I can put something

more formal together for our next official meeting um generally speaking and it is active House Bill blah blah blah blah blah blah blah um 1537 is is the the bill where um housing developments if they meet a certain criteria and it has to be associated with a a a certain density um and a certain certain level of affordability has the ability to uh request mandatory adjustments to the development code um and they're allowed to request up to 10 adjustments for per project um and and there's certain nuances Associated to it um that I'll sort of provide you guys a more detailed uh discussion on what that looks like um I am still working um with Tammy um my my right-hand man um woman Confidant in my department uh to determine whether or not uh the easiest path is for us to just amend our code and incorporate it within our code um because a lot of the adjustments that they have identified are are very similar to the adjustments that we already allow for um and so we're still trying to figure out what's the best alternative to it uh as it stands right now nobody has asked us for any of those adjustments and none of the projects that have come forward meet the criteria yet so it is not a big issue yet within our city um but it is something that we do need to be aware of and might want to make some adjustments to our code for so I will bring that forward likely in April stops filing stuff on top have you heard of any that other cities are doing in regard um there are some cities that are attempting to opt out of it um that is incredibly rigorous and requires some significant buyin from

the development Community um where you basically have to get the development Community to say that yes this city is uh fabulous and we support them and opting out of it because they give us everything that we want um and that is uh and they're they're asking for a lot for that um a lot of cities are basically doing a a side by side um where they have their own code and then they're applying it as a secondary sort of Step sort of thing um and there there's other cities that are doing kind of what we're doing where they're so similar that it's just sort of you're orating it in so there's sort of three tiers to it um we're still trying to figure out what's the the best tier to it um for us but it's it just hasn't been a big issue for us yet so um we do have a system already drafted in place as an internal policy that if it does come in place uh come before us in the interim if we don't have anything automatically done within our code um state law allows us to process it as a what's called a it would be the equivalent of a class two variance application for us um so it's the the mid- tier variance that it doesn't come directly to the Planning Commission but it's not just the giving it out like candy basically so still requires a public notification still has some level of rigor to it but it's it's there's a problem in place for us so I don't what is a process if I went home and read the code and made notes and say okay here's my list of what I want changed what is the process and does you come into the city you provide us with an application for a code development code text Amendment um that includes the proposal of the amendment that you want to

propose um and you have to provide a justification for us as to why that development code text amendment is compliant with not only our comprehensive plan but also the Statewide planning goals as well um so you provide a pretty rigorous narrative um that that explains all of that it's a $2500 application because it takes us time to a process it review it to make sure hey are we going to support it or not um but then also there is legal noticing requirements um and you have to do two public hearings which takes a lot of time for us to put the agenda packets together and then go through the hearing and meeting processes and and quite honestly I mean I do see Laura's point and that what she was saying was that we don't need a code interpretation because it already says what it says um but now that we have an interpretation she certainly could put in now for a code for code modification right absolutely yeah so does that come with a $2500 fee to a lot of work it's a it is a lot of work to go through it right so this has not been an issue because we haven't had a proposal for a trail in the zone or anything like that so the amount of like it should be well to go through all the state plan goals and I understand that um you know I but as a citizen when I was sitting back there is like well you know I don't like this code but obviously I'm not going to hire a planner and then toss another 2500 bucks towards a it would be nice if you know there was a way to be

well the way you do it is you go to the city council meeting and you talk to the city council and if they like your idea then they direct staff if they like your idea enough right but so the city council directs policy city council directs us to implement that policy and we Implement that policy through those the application of our development code and the change of our development code but the public themselves if they want to be the the measurement of that tool of change they have that application process before them the reality dictated constructed by City to do it it's just not feasible to do it right yeah yeah don't and so that's where it's like if if there is something that is directly impacting something we we will address it through appropriate measures we don't generally just audit a code if there's not an issue and go oh there there's something we change it because it does take a lot of time so I have a clarification question generally speaking so if you have a master plan for something at the time that a master plan is created are all the little details gone through at that time or is only until so like for instance on the trails plan coming into the situation where we have potential to go through low density and it may or not not be allowed was that considered at the time the master plan was created yeah trying to wrap my head around why it's not just now coming up so yeah you you yeah you have people that so so we go out we develop a master so we develop a master plan ed through

and a master plan is in a sense somewhat concep right have the ability to shift things around say we wanted to moil not looking okay but that gives you it's like your street Network generally in alignment right you might move it here or there but you're generally in alignment right my point was is that the experts they're not fine tooth combing the code to make sure now and and and this is to give you some context our comprehensive plan was adopted in 2004 that was a whol scale change comprehensive plan which meant that there was a wholesale complete change of the development code there everything out with the bath water completely rewrite everything right that code was being Rewritten by one person okay you have the master plan the trails master plan that was being written by another person rail's master plan started in 2007 2007 code the old code was in place so when you were reviewing the master plan and you were starting the master plan you were looking at everything and you going all of these zones all of this is permitted everything is fine so when you look at the trail master plan all of the zones that are listed there you have to do a zoning code analysis as part of your Trails master plan and it is identified which zones the trails are permitted in so that's where the intent comes into play time that they created this the zoning it was clear and in the

old code Parks was a generalized statement and Parks was inclusive of all the recreation recreational amenities which was inclusive of trails and then in the new code scriber over here person over here writing it not inclusive of the trail master plan over here is writing a completely separate document and creating separate land use designations and creating definitions AS stand and creating definitions that is separate from a different documentation and so you clearly have an intent that was a adopted and implemented and the intent is there and you just have you have the the meshing that that was clearly left hand and right hand yeah yeah okay and that happens all right the time a and for something as simple as this where we've been implementing Trails for 20 years under this and it hasn't and all of a sudden we're up against something where we may not be able to implement the master plan because of a new you have to look at what is the intent and you have to you're looking at the city's intention is clear that trails are intended there's clear intention under the comprehensive plan that trails are intended it's very clear upon the adoption and the the scribing of the master plan that upon the scribing of the master plan there was an evaluation of the the code at the time and trails were intended is there not like a grandfather clause kind of sort of that's what we just did basically I mean interpreted it Clause means it's something that was already being built time well that's what this is essentially then right I mean the master plan is but the trail itself a a trail itself is not constructed so it's still

up for interpretation you asked about whether somebody could come in file an application that yeah I was trying to play Devil's Advocate but we have a unique case because some of the trails but it's it' be a very unique situation by the city so what do you feel is next step me you got to let them go through the process but apparently I'm doing a code change well you can wait until somebody applies for it right once they take this to the city implement it you're going to do it well I mean I think you whatever they decide as far as may still say well and you guys are a quasa policy directive body as well right you you guys help make land use decisions as well so you yourself as a body have identified that that is a a desire to to make that happen too and so and do know that you guys don't go to those yes you pay attention to it's not like go to the council we don't they do pay

attention so for all intents and purposes we could actually ask staff to uh consider a code Amendment bring it back to us and then we send it on to city council because I think it's think it initi I would think that would be more of an initi yeah so they would have to ask for it you can make a recommendation to council that the code has changed it's an advisory position at that point KY was right I me this is more you guys come to that's what I was training this is done so you guys can go and say anything you want at the city council but I mean as part of our readout to the city council upon appeal because we anticipate that this will largely be appealed right we would we would read out what happened at the Planning Commission meeting we would identify that the Planning Commission vote was 5 to one uh in support of staff's interpretation um but the Planning Commission did recognize that it is something that should be addressed as a a future code Amendment sooner rather than later right we would take your your quasi policy uh advisory position and present that to council uh as part of your your readout action so I'm thinking if we did something like that and be proactive we might be able to nip this in the bud hopefully I'm not going to speak to what actions could be nipped in the butt or not I I well there's no way to but I'm just saying that

well for I'm not speak for Kelly on that one yeah got going tonight is perfect is that what they call a car out everybody has 24 hours there 100 hours on it and I come in here and throw C clean up in AI you're good um I love you Tina brilliant on the build Lebanon Trails so this is more of just kind of a curiosity question but so the master plan if build Lebanon Trails hadn't been established and was going forth on you know getting funding and establishing these trails is that something that the city eventually would have done themselves given the funding or is it purely dependent on no I mean Alliance share the okay okay so the master plan ini right would we have I don't know okay hire somebody just to go out for the grants and all that kind of buils okayed a lot okay big thing for the city was just maintain sure and they do a lot of volunteering and yeah they do I think yeah you want to start that conversation we don't have a separate Park in reused have Parks no no no she's talking about a

separate parts yeah I'm talking about completely separate what would that take take the uh the pool to stop their parks and wreck that's a big discussion oh yeah that's because we already have one but it's many how many meetings I've gone to with people Ian remember we have to have our voters that's right it has to be funded that's why there's a lot more parts doesn't anybody know a guy I mean I don't know that guy but my argument was I don't know that guy when I was coaching you know we had these greatb there wasn't and two third of my kids only one third of the kids parents were pay to the par that's why it always bu me so that I mean that's because I coach kids sports too and that's one of my biggest concerns is facilities and Fields and just it's figure it out I'll be in supp boort I'll be the first board member okay when you when anybody thinks of a guy let me know thinks of a guy okay any other comments any other anything else on your mind to bring up right then we are adjourned I say good job you guys did a tough one was