Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
McMinnVille council trims sidewalk requirement in appeal of MIP partition
Summary
After a lengthy public hearing on an appeal by McMinnville Industrial Promotions (MIP), the City Council approved the first reading of ordinance 5174, amending the Planning Commission decision on minor partition MP6-25 and removing the immediate sidewalk requirement for partitions; the vote was 4-1. Staff will draft written findings and return for final action.
The McMinnville City Council voted 4-1 on first reading to approve ordinance 5174 with an amendment removing the citycode improvement requirement that had forced sidewalks to be installed or bonded at the time of platting for a minor partition. The action came after prolonged testimony from city staff, the applicant McMinnville Industrial Promotions (MIP) and members of the public.
City Community Development Director Heather Richards told the council the cityhad historically placed sidewalks in conditions of approval for land divisions and that recent legal advice and ADA-liability concerns required staff to either secure deferred improvements with a bond or require construction before final platting. "When we're looking at land use decisions, Title 17 is the code that we're looking at to review land use decisions," Richards said, explaining that 17.53.153 lists public improvements the city may require and that deferrals must be secured under 17.53.075.
MIP, represented by attorney Kate Gowell, argued the city had been applying subdivision-oriented language to a simple minor partition and that the code should not be read to require secured deferment or construction of sidewalks at the platting stage for industrial partitions. "MIP does not suggest that the sidewalks and other improvements would not ever be required," Gowell said. "We respectfully request they not be a condition precedent at the time of platting and be addressed at building permit or development." She and MIP representatives also cited the cost of bonds and the speculative, long-hold nature of industrial parcels as reasons why immediate bonding would chill sales and development.
City attorneys and staff countered that the code's structure and past written legal opinions interpreted the improvements section to apply to land divisions generally, and that the city lacks authority to ignore the explicit deferment procedures. Melissa Ryan, the city's land-use counsel, warned that a council decision must be supported by written findings to withstand potential appeal, and staff asked for time to produce those findings. Council accepted an applicant request to extend the 120-day decision deadline; the parties agreed MIP would submit written extension language and staff would return with draft findings by May 12 so the council could consider final action by May 15.
Council debate centered on whether the improvement menu in 17.53.153 should be read to apply to partitions and whether a narrower approach (for instance, limiting sidewalk triggers) would be legally defensible without a code amendment. After deliberation the council voted to amend the ordinance language to exclude 17.53.153as applicable to minor partitions and approved the ordinancefirst reading 4-1 (Councilors Cunningham, Dolski and Chennowith and Council President Peralta voted yes; Councilor Giri voted no). The ordinance as amended returns for second reading on May 12; staff will provide the recommended findings and an informational memo about how other code sections might capture important public improvements.
What happens next: staff will draft the findings to support the councildecision and return for the second reading. The applicant supplied a written extension through May 15 so the city has time to assemble findings; if the council changes course on the second reading, standard appeal rights would remain in place.
