AUGUST, 2002 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:

1.    ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Milligan, Meatzie, Uhl, Cutter and Cvar answered the roll. Commissioner Hauser arrived at 6:35 p.m. A quorum was present.
2.    CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Toni Rolph, from Skyline Terrace, was there to represent the Muglestons for Phase 3 of Norwood Heights. The people who live there wished to ask the Planning Commission about waiving the requirement for sidewalks, curbs and gutters in Phase III, as they had not been required in Phases I and II. Ms. Rolph indicated that the flavor of the subdivision was rural in nature, and they would like to keep it that way. If a formal request were made to the Commission, Chair Balen indicated it would be considered. Bert Soderlund, who also lives up there, added his voice to the request to waive the requirement. His second issue was in regard to Mr. Schulte's Whispering Woods subdivision, and the fact that manufactured housing would be permitted. In his opinion, manufactured housing requires more lot-clearing than stick-built housing. He was concerned about environmental and geological issues, as well as the impact of additional vehicular traffic on the intersection of Starr/Norwood/Hwy. 101. Commissioner Milligan indicated that Mr. Schulte had recently requested an extension, as housing market was slow, and he had put the land up for sale. Further discussion ensued. Mr. Balen suggested that the homeowners put together a letter/petition to the City, requesting that they be kept informed of the work being done to address these problems.
3.    COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Meatzie declared a conflict of interest under Item "B" under New Business. The conflict was a result of a building permit submitted by himself. There were no other comments and concerns.
4.    MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the July 23, 2002 meeting. Commissioner Cutter moved to approve the minutes as presented, Commissioner Meatzie seconded, and the motion carried, with Commissioner Cvar abstaining due to the fact that he was not present at the last meeting.
5.    CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6.    PUBLIC HEARING: Case File #5-C-02 - City of Waldport: Chair Balen reviewed the procedure for the public hearing and asked for any abstentions or declarations of bias, conflict of interest or ex parte contact. Commissioners Cutter and Cvar had looked at the site. Commissioner Milligan noted a brief conversation with Ms. Vagenas, though when it was stated that the issue would be coming to the Planning Commission, she ceased conversing. Commissioner Meatzie mentioned that he was associated with the Junior League, and it appeared that the proposal would infringe on the ballfield area. There were no other declarations, and no objections registered to any member on the Commission participating.
    Staff Report: Mr. Lewis noted that his recommendation was that the Planning Commission review the building permit application, as there was little detail at this point accompanying the request. He then reviewed his written report.
    Proponent's Presentation: Mr. Lewis noted that the City had submitted the request, and he had written the staff report. There were no persons present from the Skatepark Committee or the Siting Committee.
    Commissioner Milligan noted a concern regarding the impact on any potential redevelopment of the area, indicating that it also appeared from the drawing that there would be no ingress/egress for the one house. Mr. Lewis confirmed that the location was in the right-of-way, which was City property, though probably not deeded and owned outright in fee simple. Commissioner Meatzie voiced his concern regarding the potential for the loss of the use of the ball field, other members also expressed concerns regarding the existing parking, and proximity to the houses. Commissioner Uhl indicated that if the Port ever wanted access to their property and if the school ever wanted to sell or develop their property, there would be a permanent facility in the way. Commissioner Cutter indicated that he had walked the proposed area, which felt much smaller than the measurements on the drawing portrayed. Commissioner Cvar noted he agreed with the expressed concerns, and indicated he would also like more detail on the drainage issue. Chair Balen also questioned the lack of detail. Sondra Frasure noted that she would like to see a multiple use park facility, with options for picnicking and a playground as well as a skatepark.
    Opponent's Presentation: None.
    Deliberations: Chair Balen closed the public hearing and reopened the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Meatzie moved to table the issue to the next meeting for more information and detail. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Uhl asked if the City was planning any facilities or amenities other than a skateboard park for the site, such as lights, bathrooms, parking, bike racks, etc. Mr. Lewis indicated that he had no knowledge of any additional plans. Public Works Director McClintock was present to speak to the drainage concerns. He indicated that the pump station is "maxed out" when there are heavy rains, and more impervious surface equates to more runoff. He felt it would be difficult to tie into the existing system, and the project may therefore incur additional costs for stormwater control. Commissioner Cutter stated that, based on the fact that the proposal would have a negative impact on the existing and potential uses in the area, including the reduction to access of surrounding properties, and the other concerns which had been expressed, the request should be denied. He then moved to deny the request. Commissioner Milligan seconded. Commissioner Cvar asked about a time limit on a reapplication. and It was noted that this application had been denied the motion had been made to deny the application. Chair Balen suggested that if the applicant did reapply, more detail should be presented along with the application. The motion to deny the conditional use application then carried unanimously on a voice vote. Mr. Lewis will draft the findings of fact for adoption at the next Planning Commission meeting.
7. OLD BUSINESS: None.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
    A.    Request for Extension - #2-S-93 Norwood Heights Subdivision Phase 3: Chair Balen read the letter of request into the record. Mr. Lewis noted that he had met with the property owner who could not be present at the meeting, but he had suggested that it be placed on the agenda and then held over for the next meeting. Commissioner Cutter noted the lack of detail in the packet materials, and indicated that the Planning Commission had previously requested that materials on the original application be included with time extension requests. A brief discussion ensued. Mr. Lewis mentioned that he had been provided with documentation supporting the validity of the court case which held up the development. He also suggested that the curbs, gutters and sidewalks be addressed as a separate issue. Commissioner Milligan moved to grant the extension. Commissioner Uhl seconded. Commissioner Cvar asked about the time limit on extensions, which had been amended in the last development code revision to one year. He also read the code regarding the purposes of an extension. Further discussion ensued. Commissioner Milligan noted economics are a major factor in many of these requests. Chair Balen stated that approximately 11 families per year were moving into Waldport, and many of them were taking over existing homes. Commissioner Uhl amended his motion, to grant the extension for one year. Commissioner Hauser seconded the amendment. The amendment carried, with Chair Balen and Commissioners Milligan, Hauser, Meatzie and Uhl voting "Aye", Commissioners Cutter and Cvar voting "Nay". The main motion, as amended, then carried, with Chair Balen and Commissioners Milligan, Hauser, Meatzie and Uhl voting "Aye", Commissioners Cutter and Cvar voting "Nay".
    B.    Memorandum from Planner re Mixed Use: Commissioner Meatzie noted this issue directly affected his property, hence his declaration of conflict. Mr. Lewis reviewed his memo. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Cvar and Chair Balen took offense to the implication that the Planning Commission made an error. Commissioner Cvar felt that by calling a portion of the development code an "error", the process of citizen involvement in a public hearing would be circumvented. Commissioner Cutter asked about the impact that following the process for a code change would have. Mr. Lewis explained that there would have to be a property owner notification and public hearings, and that the properties in question would have to follow through with the conditional use hearings since the code had that requirement until it was changed. Commissioner Cvar stated that the process was in place to afford property owners a voice in land use decisions, and felt that it should be followed. After further discussion, Commissioner Cutter moved to accept the recommendation that this was an oversight in the code and that mixed commercial/residential uses in a C-1 zone should be permitted as an outright use. Commissioner Hauser seconded. The motion carried, with Chair Balen and Commissioners Milligan, Hauser, Cutter and Uhl voting "Aye", Commissioner Cvar voting "Nay" and Commissioner Meatzie abstaining.
    C.    Planner's Report: Mr. Lewis indicated that questions regarding clear view for the building on the corner of Spencer and Mill Street had been asked at the previous meeting. There had been an oversight in the application review, so he did notify the applicant and they modified their plan to conform to the clear vision triangle. He then reviewed the remainder of his report. He noted that the City was in the process of completing an application for a state-funded grant for pedestrian/bicycle path on Crestline, and the TGM process has begun. He will be providing an update at the next Economic Development meeting with a timeline for events. He had conducted a parking occupancy test the previous Saturday. He was surprised how low the occupancy of the existing parking lots and on-street parking was during the day. Mr. Lewis indicated that what may come out of this may be a reconfiguration and reorganization of the parking to make it function better, rather than a recommendation for additional parking.
    D.    Other Issues: None.
9.    ADJOURNMENT: At 8:11 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.

Back to Planning Commission Minutes
Home