Planning commission reopens record on variance VR99-07 remand, sets Aug. 27 hearing limited to remanded criteria

The Oregon City Planning Commission on July 23 voted unanimously to keep the evidentiary record open on variance VR99‑07 (a LUBA remand) and to continue the hearing to August 27, limiting testimony to the remanded issues: the second prong of criterion C (self‑imposition and related considerations) and criterion F (conformance with the comprehensive plan and the ordinance intent).

Background: The request is a variance to reduce lot depth for a parcel located about 200 feet east of the Barclays and Brighton Street intersection in the R‑10 (single‑family) zone, lowering the depth requirement from 100 feet to 80 feet. The planning commission originally denied the variance on May 8, 2000; the City Commission overturned that decision on June 21, 2000; petitioners Mark Reagan and Linda Lord appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which remanded the application to the city on April 18, 2001 with instructions limiting review to specified criteria.

At the July meeting staff (Maggie Collins) and city counsel (Bill Cabezman) reviewed the remand history and the narrow scope of issues the commission must now address. Counsel outlined procedural options in light of notice and remand law: find the seven‑day notice sufficient; open the public hearing and leave the record open briefly for additional evidence; or continue the hearing to allow new evidence and rebuttal. Counsel said the city’s ordinance did not fully address remand hearings and that the commission has discretion to balance parties’ procedural rights and the applicant’s right to a timely decision.

Petitioners argued they had insufficient notice and requested additional time to compile new evidence, including witness affidavits, legislative‑history materials and testimony they said was not in the earlier record. Petitioners said they learned late that the record could be reopened and asked for either two weeks or a month to prepare. Petitioners also raised potential procedural‑appeal concerns if the remand were decided without adequate notice or additional evidence.

Applicants’ counsel Jill Long said the applicants (identified in the record as Jim and Diane Knight / James McKnight in earlier materials) had not filed a written 90‑day demand and would object to evidence unrelated to the two remanded criteria; she said the existing record is large and, in the applicants’ view, sufficient to address the criteria. Counsel said applicants were prepared to appear on a continued date but reserved the right to object to non‑remand evidence.

Staff warned that assembling public records and copies requested by petitioners would require substantial staff time (Collins estimated up to about 12 hours of work) and that the city would bill for staff time beyond routine copying. Commissioners weighed procedural fairness against the applicant’s 90‑day decision right and the need for finality.

After discussion, a motion was made, amended and seconded to keep the record open and to continue the public hearing to August 27, 2001, with testimony limited to the second prong of criterion C and criterion F as specified by the remand. The motion passed unanimously (Commissioner Orson, Commissioner Mingelberg, Commissioner Main, Commissioner Bailey and Chairperson Carter voting "aye"). The commission clarified the hearing will be open to public testimony but limited in scope to the remanded criteria.

The commission advised parties to use the intervening period to exchange materials and coordinate access to city records; staff will charge for extensive records retrieval. The commission also noted that if a party files a 90‑day demand for a decision, timelines may affect how the matter is processed.