Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, could the director please take roll?

Chair Gary Kunarovsky?

Here.

Robertson? Here. Brashears? Here. Baxter? Here. Fountain? Here. Maloy? Here. Mueller? Miller? Can't talk. He's absent. Thompson? Here. And Bloomer? Here. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. It looks like we have two sets of minutes from prior meetings that we need to approve. Has everybody had a chance to review the minutes from March 18th? Do we have any changes or corrections to them? No. Okay. How about April 15th? All right. Okay. We'll go ahead and accept those as submitted. Um, I'll go ahead and move to the citizens comments portion. This portion of the agenda is reserved for any members of the public who would like to address the planning commission on any topic that is not related to any items on the agenda. If you would like to address the planning commission, please come forward, sign in and state your name before your comments. Okay. Seeing none, we'll move on to the public hearing portion of the meeting. There's one public hearing on the agenda for tonight. Before we begin the public hearing portion of tonight's meeting, I would like to briefly explain the process. Staff will present a staff report summarizing the application and applicable approval criteria. Commissioners may ask staff questions following the presentation, and then the application will then have an opportunity, or sorry, the applicant will have an opportunity to present testimony regarding the application. After the applicant's testimony, members of the public will be invited to provide testimony and will first take testimony in favor of the application, followed by testimony in opposition. Following public testimony, the applicant will be given an opportunity to provide their rebuttal. And once all testimony has been received, the public hearing will be closed. After the hearing is closed, discussion will be limited to the planning commission and staff, and the commission will deliberate and make a decision based upon the applicable approval criteria and evidence in the record. If you wish to testify this evening, please complete a signage sheet and state your name and address for the record before providing testimony. At this time, I'll ask the city attorney to review the public hearing procedures. Trey.

Thank you. Tonight's hearing will be pursuant to the quasi-judicial procedure set out under ORS 197.797. At the start of each hearing, commission members will be asked to disclose any ex parte communication, conflicts of interest, or bias. As always, if you have any questions about what constitutes one of those, please feel free to ask. The applicable substantive criteria for this hearing will be addressed in the staff report. Testimony may be in oral or written form, but must be directed towards the criteria outlined in the staff report the comprehensive plan or the city's land use regulations. Any issue raised must be accompanied by statements and evidence sufficient to allow the commission and parties an opportunity to respond. Please note the failure to raise an issue, including a constitutional issue, by the close of the hearing will prevent any appeal to the Land Use Board of Appeals.

Great. Thank you. All right, we'll go ahead and open the public hearing planning file AR dash two six dash zero six. Is there any conflict of interest ex parte communication or bias to report? Okay, seeing none, I'll turn it over to staff for the staff report.

Thank you. Good evening, Chair and Commissioners. The public hearing tonight is Planning File AR-2606, an administrative review request to convert an existing commercial office building at 890 South 2nd Street into a 26-unit apartment building. I will begin with the brief overview of the proposal, discuss the applicable review criteria, and the staff's recommendations. The subject site consists of two tax lots and is located within the central business commercial zoning. The site contains an existing 29,974 square foot commercial office building, which was constructed in 1985, and an adjacent parking lot with approximately 36 parking spaces that serves the building. According to the applicant, the building has remained largely vacant for an extended period and is no longer being utilized for its original office purpose. The applicant proposes to convert the existing office building into 26 one-bedroom apartment units through adaptive reuse of existing structure while continuing to utilize existing parking facilities and site infrastructure. No expansion of the building footprint or increase in the building height is proposed. Notice of the application was provided in accordance with Lebanon Development Code. And as of this evening, there was no written testimony. Why is this application before planning commission? Although this application is classified as an administrative review, Lebanon Code Section 16 authorizes the planning official to refer administrative review applications to the commission for review and decision. Given the significance of this proposed downtown residential conversion, the implementation of recently adopting housing regulations and the public interest associated with adaptive reuse projects, staff elected to refer this application to the Planning Commission for review and decision. Tonight we're gonna go over the applicable review criteria for administrative review. The criteria consist of compliance with the zoning district, access and street improvements, parking, landscape and screening, public facilities and services, hazard areas and overlay zones, and supplemental regulations. The draft order contains findings addressing each of these criteria. The key question before commission is whether the proposed residential conversion is permitted within the central business commercial zoning district. In 2023, the Oregon legislator adopted House Bill 2984 to encourage the conversion of existing commercial buildings into residential uses and support reuse projects. In response to the state housing requirements and the city's housing production strategy, the city council adopted ordinance number 3036 in June of 25. Among other amendments, this ordinance allowed, or excuse me, added the conversion of existing commercial structures to residential use as an administrative review within the commercial zoning district. Therefore, while House Bill 2984 establishes the state policy framework encouraging reuse, the approval authority for this application is found in the ordinance in the Limited Development Code. The site currently consists of approximately 36 parking spaces. The applicant proposes to retain the existing parking area and utilize it to serve future residents of the development. No new access points are proposed and no roadway improvements are proposed. During review, staff noted that the office building and parking area are located on separate tax lots. The application material relied upon the continued availability of the existing parking area to serve this residential development. To ensure that site continues to function as represented in this application, the draft order includes a condition requiring the parking area to remain legally available to serve the development through lot consolidation parking easements or other legal mechanism approved by the city. Based on this information, staff finds the proposal satisfies this transportation and parking criteria. The site is currently served with public water, sanitary sewer, storm drain facilities, transportation and emergency services. The applicant proposes to utilize these existing facilities. Because the proposal involves a reuse of an existing development site already connected to public infrastructure, staff finds the proposal can adequately serve by existing public facilities subject to subsequent permit review. The project includes two tax lots with shared site infrastructure. The draft order also includes conditions requiring utilities and access easements between the two lots be recorded or lot consolidation. Staff also reviewed the application for compliance with landscaping, hazard area, overlay zone, and supplementary requirements. The proposal involves reuse of an existing development site and does not include the expansion of the building footprint, parking area, or any other significant site improvements. Staff found no deficiencies under these criteria and determined that the application approved standards have been met. Based upon the information submitted by the applicant and the analysis contained within the staff report, staff finds the proposal complies with the provisions of the Lebanon Development Code. It's consistent with Ordinance 3036, which was adopted to implement the state housing policy encouraging adaptive reuse and a residential conversion of existing commercial structures. Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Planning File AR2606 and adopt the draft order as presented. That concludes my staff report, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Awesome. Thank you. All right, commissioners, do we have any questions for staff before we open the public hearing? Go ahead and turn your mic on.

Thank you. STC fees were waived in the write-up.

So in the narrative it does discuss SDC fees and there is conditions by the state housing and we'll address those with the building permit application. Okay.

Thank you.

So, Shayna, I'm a little bit confused with the parking. Okay. You said that the parking lot was a separate tax lot.

Correct. There are two separate tax lots. So, essentially, the parking lot could be sold and built on if I didn't condition the requirement of the easements for parking.

okay so but the map doesn't show a separate tax lot it should so i thought my confusion was i thought we were talking about the lots on the west side of the building that were unimproved no so okay so we're not including those at all they're not part of the application they are not no okay okay the map and the notice is the wrong

The map in the notice is depicting the wrong tax lots?

I didn't see a line there.

It's very, very fine. It's yellow and the picture is blue.

I went to a different application and it showed 0.48 acres all in one tax lot.

Okay.

So that was my confusion. Gotcha.

Yeah, it is two tax lots.

Okay.

And there's no connection to the vacant lot behind?

No. Not as part of this development proposal.

Because I have the same impression that we were talking about the empty lobby.

I don't know who owns it. If they own it, it's not part of this packet tonight.

All right. Anybody else? I had a question about ADA access. Is this the time or is it?

Go ahead. We can.

So the front, my experience with this building from long ago when it was CenturyLink was that front ADA entrance that they called ADA was extremely sharp and steep. And I saw a lady take a tumble coming out of there and literally fall, like roll down to the sidewalk. It was not nice. So I just wondered if that probably met ADA at the time. So have we explored, are there changes that will be made to that entrance?

So after the land use approval tonight for administrative review that they meet the criteria that will be the, additional permitting process through development services for both the right-of-way and any improvements to the building. They will have to make it a residential unit and that will be included in that. You won't need to decide on that tonight, correct? Very good.

All right. There's no further questions of staff. I'll go ahead and open the public hearing and welcome the applicant to come forward and provide testimony.

Good evening, chairperson, planning commissioners, and city staff. My name is Brian Vendetta, 63 East Ash Street. With me tonight, also representing the owner-applicant, one of his employees, Josh Bacher, with Lepman Company. Also joining virtually is Mr. Scott Lepman as well. My understanding is he does not plan to testify, but he just wanted to make sure I did my job, I guess. um so thank you shanna for such a very thorough overview she touched on everything that i plan to explain to you from a land use perspective it's a very basic or simple application in my opinion the the portion that's going to get more difficult as we get into permitting and really actually the nuts and bolts of figuring out how to convert the building So before you tonight, it's a 29,900 plus or minus square foot commercial building that's being proposed to be converted to a residential use, 26 one-bedroom apartments. We believe the application meets all the applicable criteria. We've thoroughly read through the proposed conditions of approval, and we accept them as written. At that point, I guess I would stop, and if there are any questions that you have of the application, I'd be more than happy to try to answer them. Well, I will touch on Mrs. Bulmer's question. So we do plan to evaluate the entire access to the building with respect to ADA and the accessibility guidelines and the building code. In fact, we're required to. So that will be a step, as Shanna described, when we get through the permitting process. Whether we're going to alter the front entry, I don't know that at this time. I would expect there may be something, though, that needs to be done, yeah.

I just have a curiosity question. Is the entry going to be a locked entry or an open entry for tenants?

That's a very good question. I don't know the answer to that tonight, but I can get that answer and get it back to you.

Say it again.

I said I don't know the answer to that question right now, but I can get the answer and get it back to you.

It doesn't have anything to do with, like you said, more a curiosity question.

Right. Most apartments these days do have a card entry, so they're typically locked and only the residents have access to get into them.

Okay. Ryan, will there need to be any improvements to the parking lot?

To the parking lot itself, the only one I've identified so far is the accessibility portion. So right now, if you notice, the ADA parking stall is striped. There's no proper signage. There's no proper access route to get from it to the front entry door to the public way. So at a minimum, that portion will need to be evaluated and adjusted. The rest of the parking lot, on the surface, it appears to meet the standards.

all right thank you okay you're welcome all right the hearing is now open for members of the public to speak in favor of the application i don't see anyone and the hearing is now open for members of the public to speak in opposition of the application I don't see anyone for that either. Yes. Okay, so we won't have any rebuttals or anything. Okay, so seeing no further comments or questions for the applicant, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing. All further discussion will be limited to the Planning Commission and staff. So based on the testimony and staff report, do commissioners feel the applicable criteria has been met?

Can I get clarification about moving from requiring like a first floor retail? Well,

I would be happy to help you with that. So house bill that I referenced was the state's way to get us to reuse commercial facilities. This is an existing structure. So you can have residential on the first floor. If they were proposing to build a brand new structure in this zone, they would not be able to have residential on the first floor. So it is an adaptive reuse of an existing commercial building adopted in our ordinance 3034 as well.

So is that telling me that any of the downtown buildings? Don't get that secret out now. Okay. Could now be converted into resident. Correct. And so this may be the first step of changing the nature and character of the Lebanon downtown. Could be a good thing, could be a bad thing, could be nothing. Correct.

And why I elected for this to come to Planning Commission, to make it very transparent to the community that this is an option in housing. And if they would like to see this at a public testimony. Whether we might continue to do that for each application that comes through, we'll address them as they come.

And would there be an objection we could make?

Go ahead and turn that off. Sorry. Would there be an objection we can make? Only to the criteria in the administrator review that I listed. If there is something in those findings that is not true, then yes, you could say no to that. But just because you don't want it is not an option.

That's what I was asking. Thank you. Yeah.

I want to just make a comment that being an affordable housing builder myself, I think this is great. It's something I wanted to do that building a while ago, but with the new housing bill that they passed, this is a great thing. And that's a great use of that property because it's just been sitting there and dilapidating itself. So it's nice to see. Um, actually something going happening with it and it provides more housing, at least one bedroom housing in our immediate downtown area. Um, so kudos to the team agreed.

Wasn't this part of I felt like this was what our goal was with that when the housing bill did come down that we but that was one thing when I was part of that. I forgot what it was a housing production strategy.

Yes, yeah. General discussion about the about the new laws and the rules. Maybe we could do that after the hearing.

So Shannon, we don't need to do anything with the waiver that was requested.

Is there a waiver in there?

Yeah.

What was it for? It was probably part of the permit process. I don't recall it. Oh, it's part of the permit process. We'll handle it at permitting.

Correct. All right. So based on the testimony and staff report, do commissioners feel the applicable criteria have been met? Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion to approve the application adopting the draft order as presented. And I move that the Planning Commission approve the application AR26-06 and adopt the draft order as presented by the staff.

Second.

All right. There's a first and a second. All those in favor?

Aye. Opposed?

All right. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, so for Commission business and comments We reappointed Don Robertson to his lovely position as vice chair and everyone's met Darla Bloomer Bulmer I will promise I will get that correct So welcome and Have fun

All right. Any other new business or anything we need to discuss? I don't think so.

Okay.

All right. The next regular meeting is scheduled for July 15th, and this meeting is now adjourned.