MARCH, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 28, 2006
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the
meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Perry, Meatzie,
Milligan, Power, Cutter and Streeter answered the roll. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Ron Caramella addressed the Commission
regarding perceived incorrect data in the Municipal Code and zoning maps. He
suggested that a moratorium be put on any major development in the area until
those errors can be corrected, and suggested that the Commission perform a
thorough review of the code.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Cutter stated that it was nice
to see a number of attendees at the meeting, and suggested that the audience
continue to take an active role in public hearings.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the February 28, 2006
meeting. Commissioner Cutter moved to approve the minutes as presented.
Commissioner Meatzie seconded, and the motion carried unanimously
on a voice vote.
Chair Balen moved up item 7A on the agenda. Mr. Lewis gave a
brief review of the Dream Harbor application, noting that the Commission had
voted for tentative approval with some suggested changes. Two of the primary
changes were to increase the width of the proposed street to 28' and to restrict
parking to the access drives. Commissioner Cutter moved to approve the
Findings, Conclusion and Final Order for Case File #1-PD-PC-06. Commissioner
Milligan seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice
vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: The letter from L. Sproul was noted. Commissioner Perry
stated that the Downtown Project will address the condition of the highway
through the downtown area.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chair Balen asked for any declarations of bias, conflict of
interest or ex parte contact for any of the three public hearings.
Commissioner Streeter noted he was acquainted with members of the audience who
may be opposed to the Guptill zone application. Commissioner Milligan indicated
she had been the listing agent for the property on which the proposed
condominiums were to be built, though she had no financial involvement now, as
the property had been sold. No objections were made to any of the Planning
Commissioners participating in the public hearings.
A. Guptill Zone Change Application, Case File 1-ZC-PD-06:
Staff report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report, noting
the request was to rezone a piece of property from R-1 to R-3. The City had
received one letter prior to composing the meeting packet, and three additional
letters had be subsequently received and distributed. Commissioner Cutter asked if the Planning
Commission was just making a recommendation to the City Council, Mr. Lewis
confirmed.
Applicant’s Testimony: Bert Guptill addressed the Planning
Commission. He stated that he was concerned about the environment and a
community activist. He had bought the lot with a large house on it that had
recently had a fire. They would be rebuilding that house. He had thought about
putting his "dream home" in the back lot, and wanted to have a 35' building
height, which was why he was applying for the zone change. He felt that the
zoning was probably incorrect, and showed some photos of the affected area,
noting that the character of the area has changed. Mr. Guptill indicated that he
would like to settle the issue with the Port of Alsea in regard to the location
of the MHHW line.
Public Comments: The following people addressed the Planning
Commission: Zelda Carter, Hank Horlings, Katie McNeil, Sherrie Smolen, Trish
Nielsen. Concerns were expressed about the correctness of the lot dimensions,
proposed building height and the potential uses allowed by the rezoning.
Rebuttal: Mr. Guptill responded that the lot dimensions were
approximate, and included part of the vacated portion of Commercial Street. He
noted that he might want to put in a two-story duplex rather than a single home,
and reiterated that the reason that he wanted the rezoning was because of the
height limitation. He indicated that he did not have any plans to tear down the
house and erect multi-family units, but felt that the property had been
erronously zoned.
Deliberations: Chair Balen closed the Public Hearing and
opened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberations. Discussion ensued.
Commissioners Balen, Streeter and Cutter expressed concerns about spot zoning.
Commissioner Cutter asked why the applicant had not gone for a height variance
rather than a zone change. Commissioner Milligan felt that there was already a
potpourri of zones in that area, and was not opposed to changing the zone on
this property. Commissioner Meatzie felt that dividing the lot might be a better
solution, and Commissioner Perry agreed, noting that the applicant could have
divided the property into up to three lots, and then applied for a height
variance. He felt that there was clearly a rationale for the R-1 zoning in that
area, and was not compelled by the applicant’s argument. Following further
discussion, Commissioner Cutter moved to recommend
that the City Council deny the zone change request. Commissioner Streeter
seconded. The motion carried, with Chair Balen and Commissioners
Perry, Power, Cutter and Streeter voting "Aye", Commissioners MIlligan and
Meatzie voting "Nay".
B. Alsea Views Condominiums Planned Development, Case File
#2-PD-PC-06: Chair Balen opened the Public Hearing.
Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed the staff report, noting
that there had been a geotech report, traffic impact report, and a survey
identifying the MHW and MHHW lines. With the density computed on the gross land
area, a maximum of 19 dwellings could be allowed on the property. With a Planned
Development application, they could ask for a reduction in the building setbacks
and a building height up to 50% higher than the zone allows. Mr. Lewis noted
that the plan identified the riparian setback. ODOT had responded to the traffic
study with some concern, indicating that they could not make a determination at
this time on the approach, and would need additional information. Central Oregon
Coast Fire and Rescue District had also submitted concerns regarding access and
the proposed height of the buildings, and asking that an elevator be installed
that can accommodate a guerney. They also recommended sprinklers for fire
suppression and noted the need for adequate water flow for fire protection.
Commissioner Meatzie noted that this was in the Southwest Lincoln Water District
and Mr. Lewis confirmed, indicating that water is available but currently only a
2" line which would need to be upgraded to a 6" line.
Applicants Presentation: Scott Reiter, Architect, addressed
the Planning Commission. He indicated that the primary reason for going with a
planned development was make the building more compact by asking for a height
variance. The lot coverage will only be about 25% of the total site area, which
would help them to develop within the riparian and other setbacks. He displayed
the plan, noting that the parking would be under the building and not visible
for the most part. The traffic access analysis recommended that they work with
the property to the south (Hilltop Store) for access, and ODOT had recommended
joint access as well. Commissioner Balen asked if they would have to widen the
highway to provide a left-turn lane, and Mr. Reiter responded that this
application would probably not require this, but if it were necessary they would
do so. The building materials would consist of shingle, lap siding, board and
batt. Commissioner Power noted that the geotech recommended piers or piles in
bedrock, and wondered how deep they would have to go. Mr. Reiter responded that
according to the recommendations and conclusions it was 25' to 35' deep.
Commissioner Power stated that hard silt was not bedrock and Mr. Reiter
responded that this was typical of most areas along the coast. Commissioner
Balen asked how drainage would be dealt with and Mr. Reiter indicated that a
detailed plan had not been done yet, but he anticipated that there would be a
strip drain to prevent water from coming into the parking area. Commissioner
Perry noted that the buildable flat area is maybe slightly more than 50% of the
lot. Commissioner Balen wondered about revising the code to remove the inclusion
of the beach area, though that would have no impact on the current application.
Commissioner Perry asked how the piers would be installed, whether drilled or
driven, and Mr. Reiter indicated that they had not yet been designed, but they
would be working with the engineer after the application had been approved. Mr.
Reiter noted that the first level of the building would be concrete, and they
may decide to build the entire building out of concrete and steel rather than
wood. They were also not sure of the roofing material at the present time.
Commissioner Cutter asked about the outfall for storm drainage and Mr. Reiter
indicated that he had met with staff and explored some options but no firm plans
were in place yet. He also noted that an environmental impact study had not been
done as historic use of the lot had not triggered the thought of it.
Public comments: John Johnson, Chair of the Port of Alsea,
addressed the Commission. He noted that the Port has discussed the project in
detail and is strongly opposed because it will have a negative visual impact on
the community. They were also concerned about the structural integrity of a
project this size at the edge of the bay, and the potential for traffic
problems. As adjacent land owners, there was a concern about the possibility of
the structure ending up on their property in the event of a landslide or other
disaster. Ronald Caramella, adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission
and provided a graphic display of the impact the proposal would have. Dave
Jones, owner of the Hilltop Market, stated that he felt this project would have
an extremely detrimental impact on his business, especially if the traffic has
to be rerouted. Carrie Caramella distributed a copy of her testimony to the
Planning Commission, and asked that the hearing remain open for 21 days to allow
for additional response and documents. She indicated that the application did
not meet the Statewide Planning Goals, and was also a potential archaeological
site. She also noted that there was a rumor that the property would be sold as a
destination resort. Lynette Sproul mentioned she felt that the proposition was
inappropriate both visually and economically.
Rebuttal: Mr. Reiter noted that it was anticipated the
majority of the property would be owner-occupied, it was not being sold as a
resort. He felt that there would be only minor impact on traffic, as this was a
residential use. He reiterated that the reason they were asking for the planned
development was to allow for the variance on height and setbacks, and noted that
development would not be halted by public sentiment as building could still take
place within the parameters of the code. Mr. Reiter indicated that if the record
was held open, they could provide additional rebuttal if necessary.
Deliberations: Chair Balen closed the Public Hearing and
opened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberations. A lengthy discussion
ensued. Concerns were expressed regarding the size and height of the proposed
project, traffic considerations, drainage, seismological and geological issues,
ingress and egress for emergency response, and impact on the environment.
Discussion then ensued regarding deferring the decision and leaving the record
open to allow the applicant to address those concerns. Commissioner Cutter
moved to deny the application. Commissioner Streeter seconded, and
the motion carried, with Chair Balen and Commissioners Power, Cutter and
Streeter voting "Aye", Commissioners Milligan, Meatzie and Perry voting "Nay".
C. Proposed Development Code Amendment - Downtown District
Zone: It was explained that the revisions had been done at the direction of the
City Council, to create a downtown district that provided opportunities to
increase density, promote mixed uses and generate a pedestrian-friendly
atmosphere. The Planning Commission had been working on this project for over a
year. Mr. Lewis explained that the boundaries of the district were basically
along Highway 101 from the bridge to the seawall, and down Highway 34 to Alder
Street.
Chair Balen opened the Public Hearing. He then read the
description of the proposed zone. Discussion ensued regarding parking, traffic
speed and other issues. Consensus of the Commission was to leave the
hearing open to the next meeting due to the lateness of the hour, and to allow
the public additional time to read the proposed language.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
A. Consideration of Findings of Fact, Conclusion and Final
Order for Case File #1-PD-PC-06, Dream Harbor: Previously addressed.
B. Planning Report: The Commission determined it was not
necessary for Mr. Lewis to review his report, they would peruse it at their
leisure.
C. Other Issues: None.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 10:02 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 25th day of April, 2006.
SIGNED by the Chair this 25th day of April, 2006.
Samuel Balen, Chair