APRIL 25, 2006

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Perry, Milligan and Power answered the roll. Commissioners Cutter, Streeter and Meatzie were absent. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: none
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Milligan asked about the remodeling of the building on the northeast corner of Highway 101 34 and Cedar Street. Mr. Lewis indicated that the original plans had called for a remodel, but as the owner got further into the project it was found that the damage was more extensive than first thought. The ultimate goal for the property is a commercial use, with possibly a couple of different retail outlets. Mr. Lewis confirmed that the building is above the base flood elevation.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the March 28, 2006 meeting. Commissioner Milligan moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Power seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: Chair Balen noted an invitation to the next Economic Development Committee meeting on May 2. The Commissioners responded that they had all received one.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
    A. Case File #1-CU-PC-06, Hardison Conditional Use Permit Application: Chair Balen opened the public hearing, calling for abstentions due to bias, conflicts of interest or ex parte contact. None were declared.
    Staff report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report, noting that the request is to operate an automotive repair business in the industrial park. There are two existing buildings on the site, the applicant will utilize them with no proposed expansion or alterations. Chair Balen asked if the facility would be performing painting as well as repaired, and suggested that there should be clarifying language in the Staff Report’s Conclusions regarding that the vehicles to be repaired will be either within the enclosed building or parked in a visually screened area. Commissioner Perry suggested that any outdoor storage area be delineated on the plot plan and a description of the screening be provided.
    Applicant’s Presentation: Mr. Hardison addressed the Commission, indicating that the intent was just for mechanical repair, not body work. He indicated that there was a fair amount of indoor area available for vehicle storage. He eventually intends to have a screened, fenced area, but at present that may be cost-prohibitive. Commissioner Perry asked about employment possibilities, and Mr. Hardison responded that at the present time he will be working alone, but he is hoping to expand. Commissioner Power noted she pleased to see the project started, and fully supported the idea of the fence for insurance purposes as well as aesthetics.
    Chair Balen closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting for discussion. Commissioner Milligan moved to approve the application. Commissioner Perry seconded. Chair Balen noted the previous amendment to Conclusion No. 3. and moved to amend the motion to clarify that the condition applied to the vehicles to be repaired. Commissioner Milligan seconded, and the amendment carried unanimously on a voice vote. The main motion, as amended, then carried unanimously on a voice vote. Consensus of the Commission was to authorize Chair Balen to sign the findings when completed.
    Chair Balen noted that prior to the second public hearing, the Commission could dispense with Discussion/Action Items A and B if the Commission had read the findings and approved. Chair Balen then moved that the findings for Case File #1-ZC-PC-06 (Bert Guptill) be approved. Commissioner Power seconded, and the motion carried, with Chair Balen and Commissioners Power and Perry voting "Aye", Commissioner Milligan voting "Nay". Commissioner MIlligan noted that her vote on the second case, Case File #2-PD-PC-06 had been to keep the case open. Commissioner Perry clarified that the motion had been to deny the application, which passed with a 4 to 3 vote. Commissioner Power moved to approve the findings for Case File #2-PD-PC-06. Commissioner Perry seconded, and the motion carried, with Chair Balen and Commissioners Power and Perry voting "Aye", Commissioner Milligan voting "Nay".
    B. Public Hearing on Proposed Development Code Amendment (Downtown District Zone): Chair Balen reopened the public hearing, which had been continued from the March 28, 2006 meeting. It was noted that there had been no contacts or written testimony presented in the interim. The Pattersons were present in the audience, and Ms. Patterson indicated that she didn’t quite follow the parking requirements. Mr. Lewis responded, saying that if this section of code is adopted, it will not impact any existing use, only if the use is changed or enlarged. The language relaxes the parking standards currently in place, which call for one space for every 300 square feet, and which also do not allow on-street parking to be counted toward the required number of spaces. The new language calls for one space for every 600 square feet, and does allow on-street parking to be counted. In coming up with the proposed language, Mr. Lewis looked at the existing parking and occupancy rate, and utilized information from the State which indicates that previous parking requirements for small cities may have been too restrictive in comparison to what is actually needed. Mr. Lewis agreed that enforcement is always an issue, but a lot of times the owners of the property ensure that the parking privileges are not being abused. Chair Balen suggested that, after the amendment is made to the Code, letters be sent to the business owners to suggest enforcement of employee parking restrictions. Commissioner Power also suggested that the Chamber of Commerce be contacted in regard to parking issues as well.
    As there was no further discussion, Chair Balen closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberations. Commissioner Milligan moved to forward the proposed amendment to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Power seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
    A. Consideration of Findings and Conclusion, Case File #1-ZC-PC-06, Guptill: Previously addressed.
    B. Consideration of Findings and Conclusion, Case File #2-PD-PC-06, Nordell: Previously addressed.
    C. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report. There was a brief discussion regarding the school’s partition application. Mr. Lewis noted a question had arisen regarding whether the Commission desired to have him to give recommendations on cases. Discussion ensued. Mr. Lewis noted that he currently identified issues in relation to the Code, but felt it was ultimately the Commission that needed to make the decisions, and the Commission concurred, agreeing that Mr. Lewis should remain a neutral party. Discussion also ensued regarding long-range planning, especially in relation to transportation and access plans. Commissioner Perry noted that there were planning grants available for those types of studies. Mr. Lewis indicated that he would speak to the City Manager, DLCD, and ODOT in regard to the possibilities.
    D. Other Issues: None.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:00 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.

Top of Page

Back to Planning Commission Minutes

Home