APRIL PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
APRIL 4, 2000
1. ROLL CALL: Chair
Uhl called the meeting to order at 6:55 p.m. Chair Uhl and Commissioners
Milligan and Woodruff answered the roll. Commissioners Balen, Strawther,
Hauser and Streeter were absent. A quorum was not present.
2. ADJOURNMENT: Noting that there was not a quorum
present, Chair Uhl adjourned the Planning Commission meeting to April 18,
2000.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan
City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this
18th day of April, 2000.
SIGNED by the Chair this 28th day of April, 2000.
Samuel Balen, Chair
Top
of Page
Back to Planning Commission Minutes
Home
1. ROLL CALL: Chair Uhl
called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
Chair Uhl and Commissioners Milligan, Hauser, Balen and Woodruff
answered the roll. Commissioners Strawther and Streeter were absent.
Chair Uhl noted that he had suggested that the Commission consider
nominating a new chair. Commissioner
Hauser moved to nominate Commissioner Balen.
Commissioner Milligan seconded, and the motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote. Chair
Balen then proceeded with the meeting.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS:
Chair Balen noted that with the resignation of Commissioner Strawther,
a vacancy was now present on the Planning Commission.
The vacancy will be advertised after the Council had been apprised of
the resignation.
4. MINUTES: The Commission
considered the minutes from the February 15 meeting.
Commissioner Milligan moved to approve the minutes as presented.
Commissioner Uhl seconded, and the motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote. The Commission then considered the minutes from the April 4
meeting. Commissioner Hauser moved
to approve the minutes as presented, Commissioner Woodruff seconded,
and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: Letter of
Resignation - Ron Strawther: Previously
noted.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: 1-V-00,
Ford and Marks dba Excel Drug: Chair
Balen closed the Planning Commission meeting and opened the Public Hearing,
calling for abstentions, ex parte contact, bias, and conflicts of interest.
There were none.
Staff Report:
City Planner Thompson reviewed his staff report, clarifying that the
lots in question were in joint ownership.
It was noted that there were two apartments upstairs, of approximately
1350 square feet each, as well as the retail space downstairs.
Proponent's Presentation: Charles
Ford addressed the Commission in regards to the application, noting that they
were planning to construct a professional building for health care and other
such businesses on tax lots 1400, 1401 and 1500, which will have adequate
parking provided but will not allow for the required parking for the drug
store as well. He noted that the
patrons used the existing parking on Highway 101 rather than the allocated
areas on tax lots 1400 and 1401. The
professional building would bring in approximately forty to fifty new jobs.
Commissioner Hauser asked for clarification, that they were asking for
a variance to the existing parking for a proposed future use.
Tim Marks, co-owner, addressed the Commission, noting that the
preliminary plan for the new building provided for 28 to 34 parking spaces.
The anticipated building would require 22 spaces.
The plan called for a skybridge linking buildings on tax lots 1500 and
1401, with a drive-through to parking on tax lot 1400.
Commissioner Milligan asked if they had considered parking below and
building above. The designer told them that, comparing a similar building in
Newport, this would cost an additional 1 million dollars because of the
pilings and other design considerations.
Commissioner Milligan noted that her concern was that presently, the
area is economically depressed and future needs might be greater.
Mr. Ford asked if the Commission would consider a reduction in the
number of required spaces, rather than eliminating the parking requirement
entirely. Further discussion
ensued. Chair Balen noted that
the City may need to pursue the idea of additional public parking at some
point in the future, but to eliminate the parking requirements entirely was to
defeat the purpose of the code. Commissioner Woodruff also noted that diagonal parking was
rather difficult at times as well.
Opponent's Presentation:
The Commission noted receipt of a letter from James Martin which had
been entered into the record.
Chair Balen noted that the Commission may wish to leave the record
open, as the Commission was not prepared to make a decision that evening.
Commissioner Uhl moved to table
until the meeting in May, Commissioner Hauser seconded, and the
motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Chair Balen invited the applicants to submit further
information if they so desired, and suggested that the Commission review the
requirements as well. Mr. Marks
and Mr. Ford urged the Commission to expedite the process if at all possible
as time was of the essence. They
would also speak further to their design managers.
Staff clarified that as long as the record was held open, the
applicants could present designs at a workshop to be scheduled in the next two
weeks. The final action would be made at the next official meeting,
on May 16.
7. OLD BUSINESS: None.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
A.
Review of Draft Significant Natural Resources Overlay Zone Ordinance:
Chair Balen asked if the Commission had a chance to review the
ordinance and his suggested changes. Discussion
ensued. Commissioner Hauser noted
for the record that the purpose of this action was to preserve the rapidly
dwindling significant resources. Commissioner
Milligan noted a concern that further restrictions and requirements would
hamper development. Staff
clarified that any changes to be made to the document would be submitted by
the following Tuesday, and the document could then be forwarded to DLCD for
the required 45 days submission.
A brief discussion ensued regarding the status of the new development
code. Staff clarified that the
next step would be a public hearing, which would be scheduled in conjunction
with the riparian ordinance and other facets of Periodic Review.
B.
Request for Time Extension - Norwood Heights II Subdivision:
Mr. Thompson noted that the Commission could impose additional
requirements in the process of granting the time extension if they desired.
Discussion ensued regarding the location of the request.
Commissioner Milligan moved to table the issue and invite the
developer to the next meeting for clarification.
Commissioner Hauser seconded, and the motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
C.
Planning Report: Mr.
Thompson reviewed his written report, noting that an additional item had been
addressed under code enforcement as he had written a letter to the owner of
the Post Office property regarding landscaping requirements.
Commissioner Woodruff noted that Mr. Thompson should contact the
property owner on the corner of Hemlock and Maple St. to address clear vision
requirements.
Consensus of the Commission was to schedule the workshop to
review the Excel Drug application for Wednesday, April 26 at 6:00 p.m.
9. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:28 p.m.,
there being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner
Hauser moved to adjourn, Commissioner Woodruff seconded, and the
motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan
City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 23rd day of May, 2000.
SIGNED by the Chair this 23rd day of May, 2000.
Samuel Balen, Chair
Top Of Page
Back To Planning Commission Minutes
Home
1. ROLL CALL: Chair Balen
called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m.
Chair Balen and Commissioners Milligan, Uhl, Streeter and Woodruff
answered the roll. Commissioner
Hauser arrived at 6:08 p.m.
2. DISCUSSION ITEM: Variance
Request - 1-V-00 Marks and Ford: Chair
Balen noted that the purpose of the meeting was to consider additional
information to be provided by the applicants.
Mr. Ford showed the Commission the proposed plan, which would require
22 parking spaces, and explained that the plans had been changed to include
some above-grade under the building parking spaces, which would increase the
number to approximately 30 spaces. Discussion
ensued.
Chair Balen noted that the criteria for variances needed to be
addressed in consideration of the request.
It was determined that #1 did not apply, as there was action on the
property after 1972. Discussion
ensued regarding the parking arrangements for the other surrounding
businesses. It was determined that noncompliant parking arrangements
could not be used as a criteria for granting the variance. The applicants noted that they were planning to proceed with
the project in phases, and the first building would be erected on the lot
which did not currently have any required parking spaces on it. Further discussion ensued.
Commissioner Milligan noted that if the applicant requested a reduction
in the number of spaces required, rather than getting rid of the entire number
of required parking spaces, might be more palatable to the Commission.
Commissioner Uhl agreed. Following
further discussion, Chair Balen noted that a decision would not be rendered at
the present meeting, since the hearing had been continued to the following
regularly scheduled meeting.
Discussion ensued regarding parking problems in the City in general. Chair Balen noted that he would draft a letter of concern to
the Council in regards to parking problems in general and asking that the City
look at long-term solutions to the problem.
3. ADJOURNMENT: At 7:05 p.m.,
there being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner
Hauser moved to adjourn, Commissioner Woodruff seconded, and the
motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan
City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 23rd day of May, 2000.
SIGNED by the Chair this 23rd day of May, 2000.
Samuel Balen, Chair