MARCH, 2005 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 22, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair
Balen called the meeting to order. City Clerk Quinlan swore in Commissioner
Milligan. Chair Balen and Commissioners Milligan, Power and Cutter answered the
roll. Commissioner Meatzie arrived at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Perry was absent. 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 February 22 meeting.
Commissioner Cutter noted he had also been absent from the meeting. Commissioner
Meatzie moved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Power seconded, and the
motion carried unanimously.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
A. Case File 2-CU-PC-05, Chris Graamans - Conditional Use
Application: Chair Balen opened the public hearing, calling for declarations of
bias, conflict of interest, or ex parte contact. Nothing was declared.
Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his staff report. He noted that this was an
application to expand an existing conditional use. He indicated that required
parking would result in 18 spaces, but the Commission had allowed a reduction in
the original application, and applying the same logic, 11 spaces would be
adequate for the use.
Applicant’s Presentation: Mr. Graamans noted that he would be
happy to answer questions. The expansion was being done initially for storage,
but eventually machinery may be moved in. The new building would have the same
construction as the existing building. He currently has 3 parking spaces, (one
ADA) and was planning on gravel for the additional spaces which will total 11.
He noted that customer traffic was minimal. Commissioner Milligan congratulated
the applicant on his expanding business and good reputation.
Chair Balen closed the public hearing and opened the meeting
for discussion. Commissioner Cutter asked if the Commission needed to
acknowledge that machinery may be moved in at some point. Mr. Lewis indicated
that this could be incorporated into the findings. Commissioner Cutter moved to
approve the conditional use permit, with the staff recommendation for parking,
and including manufacturing as well as storage. Commissioner Milligan seconded,
and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
B. Case File 1-PD-PC-05, Joseph and Nancy Penzola, Planned
Development Application: Chair Balen opened the public hearing, calling for any
declarations of bias, conflict of interest, or ex parte contact. Nothing was
declared.
Staff Report: Chair Balen asked about the relationship between the applicant and
the property owner, and Mr. Lewis responded that it was his understanding the
applicant was purchasing the property from the Leongs. Mr. Lewis then reviewed
his staff report. He noted receipt of written testimony from one property owner,
and a request from the Fire District to provide some sort of turnaround. Chair
Balen asked about clear vision provisions, and Mr. Lewis responded that the
requirement was 30 feet for residential, and the corner of the proposed building
on lot 7 was apparently on that line.
Applicant’s Presentation: Dawn Pavitt, representing the
Penzolas, addressed the Commission. She explained that the buildings would be
done in “Craftsman style”, with shake siding. She also noted that the applicant
could have put 31 apartments as an outright use on the property without having
to come before the Commission , but that they had tried to come up with a plan
that would keep the single-family residential character instead. Mr. Penzola met
with Public Works staff and submitted plans for water, stormwater and sewer
which, with some revisions, have now been sent on to the State for approval. The
applicant and the City will split the cost of paving Fayette Street, and the
applicant would provide a turnaround if necessary. The intent was to keep the
pathway informal, with the common area protected by CC&R’s. Ms. Pavitt noted
that the applicant was not proposing any changes to the R-3 height requirements,
and also explained that what was on the plan was a proposed building envelope
with the construction to occur within the requested areas. The actual structures
may be smaller, and each home would include a 2-car garage plus driveway. Ms.
Pavitt indicated that the elevation was established at Alder Street at 2' above
floodplain, and the floor levels will be set at the existing grade, which should
be adequate, though a base flood survey would also need to be submitted. The
front homes would be single-story, with the building heights then stair-stepped
toward the rear of the property so that all homes would have a good view of the
bay. In response to a concern from Commissioner Cutter, Mr. Penzola noted that
the size of the structure on the plan was the footprint rather than the square
footage, the houses are actually one-, two- or three-story buildings.
Public Testimony: Sherrie Smolen addressed the Commission,
stating that she owned property on the north side of Fayette. She noted that
every proposed lot was undersized and, referring to the conceptual plan included
with the materials for the recent zone change, did not understand why they
increased the number of proposed homes from six to eight. She felt this would be
unattractive, and was also concerned about the setbacks between the buildings.
Ms. Sones, another property owner, noted that Fayette and Alder both deadend
right now, and was concerned about an increase in the number of juveniles in
that area and the potential problems that may arise. Mike Smith noted that he
did not oppose the application, stating that Old Town has needed something like
this project. His concerns were in regard to the density of building and the
impact on the riparian area. Ray Woodruff mentioned he was the Chair of the
Central Oregon Coast Fire and Rescue District Board, as well as an adjacent
property owner, and noted that the plan did not adequately address fire safety
and access for emergency vehicles. Discussion ensued regarding the size and type
of turnaround needed. Cindy Strauss was concerned about loss of access to the
beach and the riparian area. Susan Woodruff noted that she was excited to see
development occurring, but had concerns about the common area. She noted that
the idea of a planned development was to provide a shared common area in
exchange for a higher density, but felt that the proposed area would only
benefit a couple of the houses. Doreen Fox expressed opposition to any
“tenement-like” structures.
Applicant’s Rebuttal: Ms. Pavitt indicated that the intent in
regard to the common area was that the CC&Rs would make the homeowners
responsible for keeping the area clean. The plan was to improve the street for
public use, but not to limit or prohibit access to the beach or the riparian
area. She asked that the Commission consider as a condition of approval that the
applicant work with the Fire Department and the City to design an acceptable
emergency access and turnaround. The applicant was proposing to install an
additional hydrant at the corner of Fayette and Alder, which would improve the
fire protection in that area. Ms. Pavitt also noted that the proposed setbacks
were based on a “worst case” scenario, and that the actual setbacks could be
greater. Terry Remmers addressed the Commission and noted that the whole concept
from the beginning to this point was looking at revitalization and highest and
best views of the property. He believed that the overall proposal in comparison
to the permitted outright use of an apartment complex was better for the City.
Ms. Pavitt added that one of the conditions required by the City was to extend
the water and sewer lines, which would benefit the neighboring property.
There being no further testimony, Chair Balen closed the
public hearing and opened the meeting for discussion. Commissioner Cutter
indicated that he liked the design, but had concerns regarding the required
turnaround and the fact that the common area was really only benefitting lots
one and two. He noted that the intent of a planned development was to have a
central green space for all the homes. He was also concerned about retaining
public access to the beach, and felt the size of the proposed yards were
inadequate. He suggested either reducing the size of the proposed buildings or
increasing the size of the proposed lots. Commissioner Power concurred, noting
that she was concerned about the bayfront and riparian area, as the dunes have
already been disturbed and tend to lose or gain ground on a yearly basis. She
also expressed concern for emergency services and the lot sizes. Commissioner
Milligan indicated that she applauded the effort of the applicant, and felt that
the plan would address the problem of blight in Old Town. She noted that the
preponderance of recent homebuyers have been “baby boomers” buying second homes
and retirement homes, not young families; and that the applicant could have put
in a condominium instead, which might have resulted in little or no yard at all.
Commissioner Meatzie felt that the emergency services accessibility may
interfere with the proposed lot sizes, and that the applicant was asking for a
great deal of modification to the code requirements. Commissioner Balen noted
that more consideration should be given to a true common area within the
development, and expressed concern regarding the number of undersized lots that
were being requested. He suggested that the applicant reconsider the design,
given the comments and concerns expressed by the audience members and the
Planning Commission, and noted that an artists rendering of the houses on the
lots would be appreciated. Following further discussion, Commissioner Balen
moved to continue the issue to April 26, to allow for the applicant to respond
to the concerns regarding lot sizes, side yard requirements, access for
emergency vehicles, and an accessible common area. Commissioner Cutter seconded,
and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
A. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report.
B. Continued Review of Proposed Development Code
Additions/Revisions: Consensus of the Commission was to defer this item to next
the meeting.
C. Other Issues: None.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 9:25 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Commission, Commissioner Cutter moved to adjourn. The motion was seconded, and
carried unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan
City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 26th day of April, 2005.
SIGNED by the Chair this 26th day of April, 2005.
Samuel Balen, Chair
Back to Planning Commission Minutes