Stayton — The State Planning Commission on Aug. 25 continued a public hearing on an application to convert 7.11 acres at 1601 Oriole Street into a conceptual master plan proposing 22 single‑family lots, accepting new materials from the applicant and asking staff to review them before the commission reconvenes Sept. 29.

The applicant team — represented by attorney Alan Sorem and civil engineer Mark Rents of MultiTech — presented a multi‑sheet packet and a written narrative the morning of the hearing that they said addresses staff’s earlier concerns about lot sizes, open space calculations and stormwater. "A letter by Barry Buchanan from the city of Dayton to Mark is dated Monday, Aug. 11," Sorem said, and emphasized that the city had agreed the stormwater detention area could count toward the 25% open‑space requirement.

The new materials, Sorem said, include 23 drawing sheets and a written statement addressing the four approval criteria for conceptual master plans; the applicant requested the commission approve the concept and allow a subsequent detailed design review. "This is a concept plan request," Sorem said, describing the submission as construction‑level detail even though the commission must decide at concept level.

Why it matters: The hearing concerns a sizeable infill parcel and seeks departures from the city’s typical low‑density lot sizes in exchange for preserving a relatively large wetland and stormwater facility as open space. How the commission weighs compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and the proposed open‑space treatment will determine whether the applicant can advance to the detailed design stage.

Key details and debate

- Project and approval criteria: The application is for a conceptual master plan development because wetlands occupy part of the property, which requires the master‑plan route rather than a conventional subdivision. Commission chair Larry McKinley read the land‑use file number into the record and noted the statutory notification materials were available to attendees.

- Lot sizes and neighborhood compatibility: The applicant said lots would average roughly 6,300 square feet, about a 22% reduction from the typical standard for low‑density residential zones. Sorem argued that the proposal remains "reasonably compatible with the surrounding neighborhood," pointing to adjacent industrial and medium‑density zones, existing buffering open space, and examples such as the Wildlife Meadows PUD.

- Open space and stormwater: Engineer Mark Rents told the commission the plan provides 108,351 square feet of open space, approximately 35% of the site, and that 14,251 square feet of that area is identified as "usable open space," exceeding the 10% minimum the code requires. Rents said the stormwater detention area is existing and was constructed with earlier phases; the applicant and public works staff discussed dedication of the stormwater parcel to the city and whether it may still count toward the 25% open‑space calculation. Rents: "That's our usable as open space. There's 14,251 square feet of usable open space that we put down right here. That's 13 but what 5% of the total open space we have provided is usable, so it exceeds the 10% minimum that's required."

- Public works and maintenance questions: Commissioners and staff pressed the applicants on who would maintain the open space and stormwater facility if it were dedicated to the city, and when maintenance responsibility would transfer. The applicant said maintenance and ownership details are typically resolved during the detailed design review and as part of conditions of approval; they said early feedback indicated passive amenities (a trail) are preferable and more likely to be accepted by staff.

- Timing and process: City staff told the commission they had received the applicant’s materials that morning and asked for time to review before findings are drafted. The applicant noted the 120‑day review period is approaching in early October but declined to offer an additional extension beyond a previous 30‑day extension. The commission voted to keep the hearing open and continue the matter to Sept. 29 to allow staff to review the new submission.

Public comment: One nearby resident, Adam Kiser of 20320 83 Railroad Avenue, spoke during public testimony, asking about wildlife impacts, property values and how rising assessments might affect longtime residents on fixed incomes. The commission chair replied that the planning commission’s role is to evaluate land‑use approval criteria and suggested concerns about taxes and displacement could be raised with city council during subsequent stages or appeals.

What the commission requested next

- Staff to review the newly submitted 23‑sheet engineering packet and the applicant’s written narrative and prepare draft findings and a proposed order for the commission’s Sept. 29 meeting.

- Continued hearing date: Sept. 29, 2025. The commission voted to keep the record open and continue the hearing.

Background and context

The application is a conceptual‑level request; if approved, the applicant must return with a detailed design review and tentative plan that will include maintenance agreements, final grading and stormwater details, and any conditions the commission adopts. The record includes references to a prior arbitration matter related to earlier phases; the applicant and staff said that arbitration does not prevent the city from proceeding with the current application.

For now, the commission did not adopt final findings or conditions; it left the record open for staff review of the late‑submitted materials and scheduled the next hearing date. The applicant asked the commission to close the record and approve the concept; staff recommended continued review prior to final action.