Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milwaukie planners walk NDAs through land-use review types, hearing rules and evidence procedures
Summary
City staff explained the five land-use review types (Type 1—6), which reviews typically come before the Planning Commission, notice and appeal paths, the 120-day review clock and how public testimony and continuances work.
Planning Manager Laura Weigel and city staff gave an extended explanation of Milwaukie's land-use review process, noting which review types the Planning Commission typically handles and how the public can participate.
Staff described five review categories used by the city. Type 1 reviews are largely ministerial staff actions; Type 2 reviews are administrative land-use reviews (including many middle-housing land divisions) that staff can approve if code criteria are met; Type 3 reviews include public hearings before the Planning Commission for items such as variances, building-height requests and vacation rentals; Type 4 reviews are plan developments (rare in Milwaukie); and Type 5 reviews are code- and policy-level amendments brought to the Planning Commission as recommendations to the City Council.
Weigel underscored that Type 2 approvals do not automatically go to the Planning Commission and that administrative approvals are appealable if an interested party believes staff misapplied the criteria. She said that Type 3 and Type 5 proceedings are the items the Planning Commission sees most often. Staff also explained noticing practice (properties within roughly 300 feet receive mailed notice for Type 3 hearings) and that pre-application conference notes and staff reports are posted online for transparency.
Staff reviewed procedural rules for hearings: the city must generally act within a 120-day review clock once an application is deemed complete; applicants and staff often seek time extensions when more information is needed. Weigel and Chair Joseph Edge described the evidentiary structure of hearings: an initial "evidentiary" phase is for testimony and evidence gathering (and may be continued to keep the record open), and a later deliberative phase is for commissioners to ask clarifying questions and make decisions. City staff and the commission emphasized the distinction: clarifying questions are appropriate during the evidentiary record; deliberative comments and policy judgments should wait until the record is closed to avoid legal challenges.
Staff explained that a common continuance practice is the "7-7-7" cadence: if parties need additional time after the first hearing, meeting schedules can allow seven days for applicants to respond, seven days for the public to review new information, and seven days for staff to prepare further analysis before a date-certain continued hearing. City staff said the Planning Commission can schedule special meetings in unusual circumstances, but said that practice is rare.
Weigel asked neighborhood groups and commissioners to call staff with questions and reminded attendees that code amendments and larger policy changes typically go through multiple work sessions before a public hearing.
