JULY, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JULY 26, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair
Balen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners
Cutter, Milligan, Meatzie and Power answered the roll. Commissioner Perry was
excused. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the June 28, 2005
meeting. Commissioner Meatzie moved to approve the minutes as presented.
Commissioner Milligan seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice
vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - Case File 1-S-PC-05, Land & Sea Investments, LLC: Chair
Balen opened the public hearing, calling for abstentions, conflict of interest,
bias, or ex parte contact. None were declared.
Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report, noting
that there had been three letters received in regard to the application. One
letter concerned storm drainage, another cited concerns regarding sewer size and
capacity, and the third was in regard to general concerns about the development,
including traffic impact and police/fire protection. The latter two letters were
distributed to the Planning Commission at the meeting, and Mr. Lewis indicated
he had responded to the letter regarding storm drainage separately. Mr. Lewis
stated that the sewer capacity had been originally designed for a buildout of
280 lots, and this application combined with the existing subdivisions only came
to 210 lots. Additionally the City was currently working on the South Sewer
project, which is also intended to increase capacity and alleviate loading on
the sewer system. In regard to the park and park assessment fee, the City had
determined that the property the applicant had designated for park purposes was
not desired by the City, and the full park assessment fee of $52,402.68 would be
required. Mr. Lewis noted that the applicant had asked to pay the park
assessment fee in phases, and the City has agreed to allow this. A revised final
page of the staff report had been distributed to the Commission to show this
breakdown. He indicated the applicant anticipated beginning Phase 1 this year,
with Phase 2 in 2006 and Phase 3 in 2007.
Applicant’s Presentation: Dawn Pavitt, representing Land &
Sea Development, LLC, addressed the Commission. She reviewed the application and
noted that the developers were local people with an interest in the community.
The property which had been designated for park purposes would either become an
additional lot, or would be incorporated into the existing lots in Phase 3. She
noted that the design was intended to provide connecting access to parks and
open space in a pedestrian-friendly manner. The applicant was not asking for any
variances to the City’s Code requirements, and the streets would be designed to
emulate the existing streets, which were 50' wide with a 35' driving surface,
and curbs, gutters and sidewalks included. Mr. Lewis confirmed that the City’s
Transportation Plan identified Range Drive as a Class “A” collector street, even
with the anticipated full build-out of the abutting properties. Ms. Pavitt asked
to submit the information from the Transportation Plan into the record.
Chair Balen cited a concern regarding the length of the
as-yet unnamed street ending in a cul-de-sac in Phase 2 of the proposal.
Commissioner Power echoed the concern, noting that it could be a potential
problem as residents at the end would have no means of exit in case of
emergency. A brief discussion ensued regarding the park property and whether it
would be an additional lot or would be incorporated into the existing lots in
Phase 3.
Opponent’s Presentation: The following persons addressed the
Commission regarding concerns about the proposed subdivision: Juli Dahl, Jerry
Hughes, Scott Perkins, Kay Englund, Lynette Sproul, Norm Streeter, Rita Abbott,
Robert Anderson, Rosemarie DeSola, Alan Canfield, Barbara Davis, Lois Golden,
Jeff Mullican, and several other citizens. The concerns expressed included
access by school busses and safety of children, ability to negotiate cul-de-sacs
by emergency vehicles as well as residential traffic, impact of additional
traffic on Range Drive, whether the land would be completely cleared or trees
left, and whether a green belt or buffer zone would be provided.
Applicant’s Rebuttal: Ms. Pavitt responded to the concerns by
stating that the School District reviews their routes yearly, the applicant
would not be involved in that process. The easement from the existing sewer
line, plus the topography would allow for a “green belt” to the property
directly abutting the northwest corner. The applicant will have to do necessary
grading for roads and lots, the lots would be sold to individual property owners
who would then determine placement of their homes and the amount of clearing
that would be done. However, there are some restrictions on tree-cutting
contained in the proposed CC&R’s, and a buffer zone around the riparian zone has
been provided for as well. The proposed hammerhead and cul-de-sacs are designed
according to fire department standards. The City’s Transportation Plan
identified Range Drive as a Class “A” collector street in consideration of the
full potential buildout of the area. The applicant was proposing sidewalks on
both sides of the street, and connecting pathways to the City’s park areas. The
proposed density of the development was only 38% of the maximum buildout of the
area, and there would be a mixture of manufactured homes and site-built homes.
Ms. Pavitt confirmed that a geotechnical report would be done on any property
that required one.
Additional questions regarding the removal of trees, the
access to the property and the condition of Range Drive, and the City’s refusal
of the park property were asked by Linda Mullican, Virginia Hafner, Barbara
Davis and Jeff Davis. Ms. Pavitt responded that the applicant would try to
protect as many of the trees as they could, and the proposed green belt and
buffering of the riparian area would minimize the impact of the development. The
applicant would be willing to work with the City in trying to access the
property by an additional road from Crestline Drive through the City’s park
property if that could be done. In regard to the park property, it was noted
that the fees that would be paid would assist the City in developing its
existing park property. Mr. Lewis also explained that City staff would be
reviewing the phases of the development as well as individual building permits
for compliance with Code requirements.
Deliberations: Chair Balen closed the public hearing and
opened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberations. Chair Balen noted that
the developer had heard the concerns of the citizens present, and hoped that
these would be taken into consideration in the development of the subdivision.
Chair Balen indicated that the Planning Commission could recommend that the City
Council look at improvements on Range Drive and long-term alleviation of traffic
problems. He stated that the layout of the development had good design ideas and
elements, and felt it would fit well with the existing developments in the area.
Commissioner Cutter encouraged the audience to lobby the Council in regard to
improvements to Crestline and Range Drive, cautioning though that property
owners along Crestline Drive have encroached into the City’s right-of-way and
may be somewhat upset when the City eventually does install sidewalks. He
expressed concern regarding traffic eventually accessing the Norwood Heights
area from this subdivision and the negative impact that may have on the
Norwood/Starr/Highway 101 intersection, and also commented on the length of the
long street ending in a cul-de-sac in Phase 2 of the proposed subdivision.
Commissioner Cutter indicated he appreciated the fact that the Commission was
not asked to consider any variance from the Code in this application.
Commissioner Milligan noted that putting another road through to Crestline might
not be a bad idea, and suggested that the applicant consider widening the path
into the park area to 20'. She noted that the mixture of manufactured and
site-built homes were much-needed in the area, as affordable housing was
becoming more scarce. Commissioner Meatzie indicated that he remembered when
Range Drive was only gravel. He had no concerns regarding Phase 1, and indicated
he would like to see additional access to Crestline Drive as part of Phase 2,
though that may not happen. Commissioner Power wondered if the Commission would
receive updated plans for Phases 2 and 3, and Mr. Lewis responded that the first
step was the tentative approval, each phase would have to come back to the
Commission for final approval.
Commission Cutter moved to approve the subdivision
application, including the recommendations contained in the staff report.
Commissioner Milligan seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice
vote. Consensus of the Commission was to have Chair Balen sign the findings when
they were drafted.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
A. Planning Report: It was noted that the written report was
contained in the packet materials.
B. Other Issues: Nothing further.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:35 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Commission, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan
City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 23rd day of August, 2005.
SIGNED by the Chair this 23rd day of August, 2005.
Samuel Balen, Chair