Dunes City Council     M I N U T E S    July 22, 2008     7:00 P.M.       Printable rtf file

City Hall – 82877 Spruce Street 97493

1.  Call to Order and Roll Call  

The special session of the Dunes City Council was called to order at 7:00pm by Mayor Eric Hauptman.  Roll call was taken by Amy Graham, City Recorder. 

Present:          Mayor Eric Hauptman, Councilor Peter Howison, Councilor Susie Navetta , Councilor Robert Quandt, Councilor Richard Koehler .  Councilor Gerald Curran and Councilor Bob Petersdorf was not present.  

Others Present:          City Recorder Amy Graham, Planning Secretary Lisa Ekelund, David Allen of the Law Office of Macpherson, Gintner & Diaz and 7 members of the community.                                     

2.  Pledge of Allegiance  

The Mayor and the City Councilors joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.  

3.  Announcement  

Thursday, 07/24/08 at 10:00am volunteers needed for a clean up of the building, grounds and gardens.  Bring clippers and shovels!  

4.  New Business  

Resolution number 0722-08A, Resolution number 0722-08B  

Mayor Hauptman announced that the resolution is a $3000 grant matched $3000 by Dunes City .  He called upon Amy to explain the grant to councilors. Amy said that it is a grant that is already on the budget.  We have never had to do a resolution for grants before.  This is a new requirement saying that we are accepting the grant.  Mayor Hauptman asked for a motion to accept the grant of $3000 from Lane Conservation and Development.  Councilor Navetta made a motion to accept the grant, seconded by Councilor Curran.  

Councilor Navetta asked if we are repaying the grant with money or time.  Amy stated that it is a fifty-fifty match.  It can be money or time.  Amy said that there are volunteer log sheets in the office that volunteers sign in and out on to record time.   Councilor Navetta stated that we have a lot of volunteer water committee hours.  Mayor Hauptman asked if there was anymore discussion, council responded no.  All in favor of Resolution number 0722-08A, all voted unanimously in favor motion carries.  

The Mayor stated that the next resolution on the agenda is Resolution number 0722-08B transferring funds from the money market account to the checking account, transfer amount is $10,000 it is predominately to pay the 911 tax. 

Councilor Curran asked what is the 911 tax?  The Mayor stated that it is money that comes to us from the state.   Florence is the 911 hub for this area, we get funds that come in and they go back out again.  Councilor Howison made a motion to accept Resolution number 0722-08B, the Resolution transferring funds from the money market account to the checking account in the amount of $10,000.  Seconded by Councilor Quandt.  All in favor of resolution 072208B, opposed, none, motion carries.  

5.         Special Session-Montgomery View Estates  

The Mayor stated that this is a special meeting regarding Montgomery View Estates and turned the floor over to City Attorney David Allen.   

Before beginning, Councilor Robert Quandt continued to recuse himself due to personal interest with Mr. Montgomery regarding a property deal that is still pending and stepped away.  

David Allen said that if there were any ex parte contacts between the last meeting on July 15, 2008 and this meeting, they need to be disclosed to make it clear on the record.  The Mayor asked the councilors if there was any ex parte contact with Mr. Montgomery’s attorney or anyone that is involved with this development.  Councilors responded, no.  

David Allen said this was a special meeting scheduled and was announced at the July 15^th meeting.  Under the public meetings laws special meetings are to be given twenty-four hours advanced notice and that was done.  The City Recorder did place an announcement for public notice publication in the local paper on Saturday, July 19, 2008 .  The requirement under the statute is that twenty-four hours notice should be given to the governing body, the news media and the general public.   

The only thing that was referenced in the notice was the Montgomery View Estates issue which is the principal subject of this meeting.  He said that a couple of resolutions were referenced prior to this were not listed in the notice. That should not have precluded council from taking action on those resolutions because the statute also provides that if additional subjects come up they can be dealt with.  These issues in regard to the resolution came up late yesterday after the notice had been published Saturday.  He said those can be added on for action.  

Councilor Koehler asked if he could clarify what is public notice. David Allen then clarified and said that proper public notice was given to continue the public hearing for the Montgomery View Estates under the rules regarding public hearings.  He said that Dunes City has been consistent with giving appropriate notice on this issue.  

David Allen provided Councilors with the proposed final written order along with a written memo and enclosure of ten pages that he also forwarded to City Recorder.  He said he would reference the content of the memo and the reason it was provided before a final decision was made tonight.  He did want to note that the applicant’s attorney Kim O’Dea did send him an email which she requested he forward on to council objecting to the memo and the enclosures being provided before final decision was made tonight.  The email regarding her objection was sent and received yesterday.  He forwarded that email to the City Recorder and Council now had that objection in front of them as well as his response to her objection.  

The documents that are included in the memo from July 18, 2008 are documents that are now considered part of the record on review and different than what he believes the applicants attorney was speaking about which was the hearing record or evidentiary record.  The record on review is the record that would be for purposes of any appeal that might occur from this decision.  If those documents were placed before council in a manner that the applicant or another party believes were inappropriate then they can raise that objection at LUBA.  That would be an issue for LUBA to decide.  

David Allen continued to discuss the documentation he provided.  He said that the final document was an email that the applicants’ attorney sent to him which says they were not going to grant the city any further extension. Other documents provided are further verification of what’s already in the record or what was mentioned during the public hearing.  

Mayor Hauptman asked all councilors if they have had the opportunity to look at the preparation of the final order.  They responded yes.  He then asked if there were any comments or any kind of changes or additions they would like to make.  David Allen told council to please feel free to make council changes.  David said that even though this was in front of Council for adoption, if council believed that there need needed to be any language changed that language can be noted on the record.  Based on the changes made, council can then adopt this document with the changes tonight.  As long as council adopts it tonight, a clean copy can be given to the City Recorder tomorrow and the Mayor can then sign it tomorrow.  That would still be within the time frame which is July 24, 2008 .  

Mayor Hauptman then proceeded in order and asked if there were any changes on page one of the final order of findings conclusions, and decisions Montgomery View Estates Subdivision Plat.   

Councilor Navetta said that there was only one thing that confused her, in the very first paragraph it says lots 19 and 20 are reserved for development as far as the PUD application.  She then asked that if they agree with this are they telling the people there’s a possibility that that could happen.   

Mayor Hauptman said that he thinks it says that they are being held in reserve for future application.  He said he didn’t think it was a passive agreement.   

David Allen said yes, their request is to divide a tax lot or at least a portion within the city urban growth boundary limits which is a portion of this tax lot. Roughly 26 acres is the eastern portion actually within Lane County and that is not subject to subdivision application.  The 34.5 acres to the west is what is being requested to subdivide and as part of that subdivision request, lots 19 and 20, especially lot 20 is a very large lot that can be further divided at some point in the future.  What the applicant requested which is what is allowed under code is that the subdivision is to occur and they are dividing it into different lots but some of those lots don’t really conform to what the subdivision is going to be.  Once the subdivision goes through and the tax lot that is not conforming to the subdivision, if the applicant wants to re-divide it later then the applicant can request application.  Then they are going to have an application later to create another subdivision or in this case a planned unit development because it’s going to be smaller than an acre.   

They are condensing these lots into a smaller subdivision of a subdivision.  That is going to be subject to a later application, assuming this one would have been approved.  They are saying they are reserving lots 19 and 20, if the subdivision would have been granted, for a future application.  That would be a future PUD application subject to all the requirements they have to go through with preliminary plan approval and the final Plat approval for PUD.   

There was a question about whether that actually is indicating a re-division.  Planning secretary, Joy Gipson had brought up the fact that this is apparently just a phased-division of a subdivision.  David Allen said he did not read it that way.  He read it the way the applicants attorney intended it to be which is lots 19 and 20 are not a phased-division of the subdivision.  They are going to be set aside and if the applicant chooses to develop those lots later on a separate PUD application will then be forwarded to the council for their review.  That is allowed in DCC155.4.3.110, for future re-division plans.  There are no lots 19 and 20 if council does not approve the sub-division tonight.  Denying the subdivision tonight is going to keep things as status quo which is tax lot 100.   

Mayor Hauptman asked if any of the councilors had any more questions.  He then addressed the councilors and said that what he believed was in front of them is a written affirmation of their earlier decision.  He would like to entertain a motion on the final order findings, conclusions, and decision on the Montgomery View Estates Subdivision Plat (SUB-01-07).  

David Allen addressed Mayor Hauptman and said if a motion is entertained to adopt a final order then he would want after adoption to sign and date it as is indicated on the order.  Mayor Hauptman acknowledged this.  

Councilor Howison moved to accept the final order, findings, conclusions, and decision, Montgomery View Estates Sub-division Plat (SUB 01-07); that we confirm our vote to deny the application and to have it recorded on this date July 22, 2008 .  Councilor Navetta seconded the motion.  David Allen asked Councilor Howison to clarify by saying adopt the order.  Councilor Howison then amended his motion to say adopt instead of accepts.  Councilor Navetta seconded the amendment motion.  All voted unanimously, Mayor Hauptman said motion carries final order of the final decision Montgomery View Estates Subdivision has been adopted.  

Mayor Hauptman asked if there was any further business.  There was no comment.  He then asked for a motion for adjournment.  

Councilor Curran moved to adjourn.  Councilor Koehler seconded.  All voted

Unanimously and the meeting was adjourned at 7:35pm .  

Respectfully Submitted,  

Diane Morgan    Administration Assistant