Loading...
Minutes - 12/18/1998 Workshop COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 18, 1998 TAPE READING 0420 DATE. COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL, CITY OF WOODBURN, COUNTY OF MARION, STATE OF OREGON, DECEMBER 18, 1998. CONVENED. The workshop convened at 2:00 p.m. with Mayor Jennings presiding. 0425 ROLL CALL. Mayor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Councilor Jennings Bjelland Chadwick Figley Kilmurray Pugh Sifuentez Present Present Present Present Present Present Absent Staff Present: City Administrator Brown, City Attorney Shields, Community Development Director Goeckritz, Intern Administrative Asst. Smith, City Recorder Tennant Planning Commission members present: Terry Will, Laten Frawley, Doeke Gerbracht 0435 Adrianne Brockman, Attorney in Portland's City Attorney's office, facilitated a training workshop on the quasi-judicial decision making process as it relates to land use planning. She stated that land use decisions require a formal process to withstand legal challenges whether it be a denial or approval. Decisions to approve or deny must be made on standards within the City's development code. During her presentation, she helped the workshop participants to identify approval criteria and determine an appropriate finding based on the criteria which may include conditions of approval. She reiterated that the land use process is totally tied to the standards that are set by ordinance and the City's comprehensive plan. Evidence presented during the public hearing process needs to be based on established criteria. To help the audience understand what criteria is applicable at each hearing, she suggested that the criteria be displayed on the wall and an explanation of each criteria be given at the beginning of the hearing to help them understand how there comments need to be directed toward the criteria and their thoughts on what conditions could be imposed if the application is approved. She stated that the State statutes address the process for making land use decisions while the City code determines the criteria and if the City wants more protection, then the Council needs to look at the criteria. Page 1 - Council Workshop Minutes, December 18, 1998 r .._---._~.~-......_.._..~._~~--_..__.~,_..,.._._-,,- I 1 ~ COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 18, 1998 TAPE READING 1101 She stated that ex-parte contact is any information you gain in anyway from outside the hearing process and that information needs to be disclosed at the hearing. This information needs to be declared for the purpose of giving everybody an opportunity to rebut the facts that have been presented. It is a requirement to disclose the facts if you will be relying on those facts as part of your decision making process. Evidence that is to be relied upon in making a decision has to be substantial evidence that a reasonable person could be found to rely upon. When there is conflicting evidence, you can believe any evidence that is substantial evidence. She also stated that the evidence must be current and reliable. 1482 Brief discussion was held regarding citizen input and it was suggested that training sessions on the planning process be held with citizen groups. Discussion was also held on recapturing fees for planning costs and system development charges on new development proposals. She also stated that the law pushes toward objectivity and adopting standards that are more flexible is acceptable, however, it does make the job harder for the decision makers. The Mayor called for a break at 2:55 pm and reconvened the workshop at 3:07 pm. 2238 The next area covered by Ms. Brockman was conditions of approval. She stated that conditions allow the governing body to make a connection with the public to make them happy. The four kinds of conditions are: I) dedication ofland, 2) dedication of right-of- way, 3) off-site improvements, and 4) on-site improvements. There are limitations to imposing conditions of approval based on the Constitution of the US, Constitution of the State of Oregon, and, in some cases, the City code. She briefly discussed the Nollan and Dolan court cases which resulted in different findings based on different set of circumstances. However, these two cases do say that I) any condition imposed must relate to burdens created by the development (adverse impact), and 2) the extent to which you can condition it must be roughly proportional to the impacts created by the development. She also pointed out that the governing body cannot use conditions of approval as a substitute for findings and the it is necessary to explain how the condition will satisfy each and every element of the approval criteria. Another concern of the City relates to school capacity since it is not in the City code. She stated that denying an application based on inadequate school capacity would probably constitute a moratorium. ORS Chapter 197 outlines the process for declaring a moratorium and the governing body needs to come up with a solution within 60 days. She stated that the staff recommendation is not binding on the governing body. A tentative decision is not binding but if you elect to change your mind after the tentative decision is reached then it needs to be for a very good reason. The final decision is final and it needs to be very clear for purposes of interpretation. Page 2 - Council Workshop Minutes, December 18, 1998 COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES December 18, 1998 TAPE READING 0538 General discussion was held regarding public input on criteria during the public hearing and public reaction to the development proposal. Staff recommendations are based on information available from the applicant and the public hearing process is designed to obtain additional information before a final decision is made. 1197 The workshop concluded at 4:03 p.m.. APPROVED'K ~O...,~, ~ RICHARD JENN GS, A YOR ATTEST fY1~~~ Mary nnant, Recorder City of Woodburn, Oregon Page 3 - Council Workshop Minutes, December 18, 1998