JULY 24, 2007

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Vice-Chair Power called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Vice-Chair Power and Commissioners Milligan, Balen and Maré answered the roll. Commissioners Streeter and Meatzie, and Chair Perry were absent. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
4. MINUTES: Commissioner Balen noted under Item 6 A the word "be" needed to be added. Commissioner Balen then moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Maré seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING:
    A. Guptill/Sutton: Vice Chair Power opened the Public Hearing on Case File 1-ZC-PC-07, calling for any declarations of bias, conflicts of interest or ex parte contact. None were noted. There were no objections to any member of the Commission hearing the case.
    Mr. Lewis reviewed the staff report, noting that in addition to the three letters included in the packet materials there had been six additional letters received and distributed to the Commission. The Commission then reviewed the additional material. Proponent’s Presentation: Scott Beckstead, representing Mr. Guptill, addressed the Commission. Mr. Beckstead stated that he had lived in one of the units during the 1990's, and noted the house should have been identified as a non-conforming use since it has separate facilities for three distinct units. He indicated that the property had a history of commercial use, but the applicant was asking for limitations on the potential uses under the rezone request, which should allay the concerns of the surrounding properties.
    The following individuals addressed the Commission: Joe Smolen, Alan Canfield, Connie Field, Judy Gibbs, Ray Woodruff, Jackie Beckstead, Leta Haslett, Katie McNeil, Sherrie Smolen, Rob Bishop, Ralph Toll, Loretta Bertholl, Eugene Cvar, Gregg Watson, and Eileen Bourassa. Anectdotal information regarding the applicant and the use of the structure as an apartment building was provided. Concerns expressed included the potential uses of the property and the abundance of vacant commercial property throughout the City. Mr. Guptill addressed the Commission in rebuttal, noting that Mr. Sutton was not present due to health issues. The last application was voted down by a split vote due to the Commission’s desire to avoid spot zoning. He indicated that his desire was to maybe put a duplex on the back portion of the property, and the zone change would also allow for an additional 5' in building height. After further testimony, both pro and con, Vice-Chair Power closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberations.
    A lengthy discussion ensued. Commissioner Balen noted concern with the limitation of uses, wondering if that would follow the property if it exchanged hands. Maré stated that he was not in favor of including a clearly residential property in the application to avoid the appearance of spot zoning. He was also concerned that if the property were further divided, the resulting lot would be the only waterfront lot that was commercially zoned. Vice-Chair Power expressed similar concerns. Commissioner Milligan noted that she was looking toward the future and the changes that expansion would bring, and felt that commercially zoned waterfront property was going to be part of those changes. Commissioner Balen moved to approve the limited C-1 designation as written in the staff recommendation. Commissioner Milligan seconded. Commissioner Balen noted that the staff report included a statement that building permit applications would be subjected to public hearing. It was noted that any changes to the types of uses permitted would require another zone change application, and the deed restrictions would stay with the property. Further discussion ensued. The motion failed, with Vice-Chair Power and Commissioners Balen and Maré voting "Nay", Commissioner Milligan voting "Aye".
    B. Proposed Development Code Amendments: Vice-Chair Power opened the public hearing. Mr. Lewis reviewed the staff report, noting that the Commission could discuss the amendments separately. There were no public comments on the proposed language for density calculations for ocean and bayfront properties. Jim Nordell commented on the language regarding the coastal shores overlay zone, noting that the term "top of bluff" needed to be defined. The Commission decided that further work needed to be done on the language. There were no comments on the proposed language for siting standards for mobile homes, or on the land partition approval process. Mr. Lewis noted that comments had been received from DLCD and the Waldport Public Works department regarding the street standards. Following a brief discussion, the Commission determined that further review of the language would be appropriate. There being no further discussion, Vice-Chair Power closed the public hearing. It was decided that a workshop would be scheduled to further discuss the street standards and coastal shores setback requirements. The Commission will then make a recommendation to the City Council to adopt the revised code language.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
    A. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report.
    B. Other Issues: A brief discussion ensued regarding setting a time and date for the Planning Commission workshop to review the street standards and the coastal shores setbacks. Consensus of the Commission was to meet on Monday, August 13, 2007 at 4:00 p.m.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:38 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.