Minutes by Year and Month

2017 (click to show)
2016 (click to show)
2015 (click to show)
2014 (click to show)
2013 (click to show)
2012 (click to show)
2011 (click to show)
2010 (click to show)
2009 (click to show)
2008 (click to show)
2007 (click to show)
2006 (click to show)
2005 (click to show)
2004 (click to show)
2003 (click to show)
2002 (click to show)
2001 (click to show)
2000 (click to show)
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

JUNE 24, 2003


1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Milligan, Meatzie, Hauser, Uhl, Cutter and Cvar answered the roll. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Meatzie noted the presence of a parked car across the street from his property that has been there a number of months. Staff will refer it to the Sheriff's Department. Commissioner Hauser indicated she felt "slighted" by the fact that an invitation to the grand opening of the skatepark had not been forthcoming to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Cutter noted that there are still problems with the children in the street on Crestline, and felt the City was negligent in putting in adequate traffic control devices in conjunction with the skatepark. Commissioner Cvar reiterated his thought that the rumble stripes to delineate the pedestrian walkway from the road would be a good idea. Commissioner Cutter added that further expansion of the Crestline park would also necessitate further traffic control.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the May 27, 2003 meeting. Commissioner Cutter moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Hauser seconded. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Balen opened the public hearing on Case File #1-C-03, Conditional Use Application for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Commissioner Hauser noted she was the senior warden of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, which was adjacent to the property in question, and indicated that the church had no objection to the application. She asked if this position would require her to recuse herself from the proceedings. The applicant did not have any objection to her participation. No other abstentions, bias or conflicts of interest were voiced.
 Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report, noting that the applicant had provided a CD of the application narrative which has been included in the staff report. Chair Balen noted that the presentation of the report was quite effective in addressing all the requirements of the code, and wished that all applications could be so complete. Mr. Lewis informed the Commission that the applicant did not have a problem adjusting the parking spaces to be 9' by 20', which is the City’s code requirement, rather than 9' by 18' as proposed in the application.
  Applicant's Presentation: Mark Cottle and Mack McSwain addressed the Commission. Mr. Cottle noted that the narrative provided most of the explanation. He indicated that plans for expansion are proposed according to a timetable, to allow for smaller congregations to afford the building process. The church has grown sufficiently in the 13 years since the original construction to warrant the expansion. The addition will include a multipurpose area, a chapel with folding chairs and a rostrum with a removeable rail. They will also upgrade the church to give it a more traditional look. The facade still needs to be approved by the Church, so they hoped that this would not require an additional hearing. The form, site plan and floor plan will not change. They showed the plans to the Commission. The parking will be paved, and they will be able to stripe the parking lot for 20' parking. Discussion ensued regarding the steeple, which is proposed to be 50' tall. Allowable height for steeples and other projections are allowed at 5' above the maximum building height which is at 35' in an R-2 zone, without further Planning Commission action. They reviewed the landscaping and also noted that the lighting will be confined to the parking area. They asked the Planning Commission to consider approval with the change in the parking space size and the full steeple height.
 Opponent's Presentation: None.
 Chair Balen closed the Public Hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberations.
  Chair Balen noted the proposal looked appropriate and consistent with what has been done in the past, and should be accomplished in a thorough and complete fashion. He felt it would be an asset to the church and the community. Commissioner Cvar stated if there was no concern about the height of the steeple from the learned members of the Commission, he had no concerns. Commissioner Milligan noted that they did need the additional room, she had attended a funeral there recently and a larger facility was really necessary. Commissioner Cvar moved to approve the application with the three staff recommendations in the staff report, as well as the lengthening of the parking spaces and the steeple as proposed by the applicant. Commissioner Milligan seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
 A. Consideration of Findings: Case File #2-S-94 (2003 Amendment): Commissioner Milligan noted she applauded the Commission's decision. Commissioner Cutter asked if the Commission denied the request for extension, would it preclude the applicant's ability to ask for another extension. Mr. Lewis responded that it may be a legal question, but it was his understanding that when the application was approved, the code language regarding time extensions in place at that time applied, which is why they have qualified for multiple extensions and multiple years. Commissioner Cutter moved to accept the Findings, Conclusion and Final Order. Commissioner Cvar seconded. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Mr. Lewis indicated that he had received a call from the applicant, wondering what it took to get the subdivision underway. He would get back to the applicant after the adoption of the findings. Chair Balen noted that engineering drawings for streets, driveways, sidewalks, drainage, erosion control, utilities and their installation and other such plans would need to be submitted. Commissioner Hauser added that she thought a geological survey was also one of the original conditions. Mr. Lewis noted that the plans would need to be submitted to staff for review and then approved by the Commission.
 Chair Balen suggested Mr. Lewis review his Planner's Report prior to the consideration of the draft downtown district zone. Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report. Discussion ensued regarding an upcoming conditional use application and whether the commission would need to look at the property. Commissioner Cutter suggested that the Commission consider visiting properties in question on conditional use permits and variances, in order to be able to visualize the issues rather than relying simply on drawings and reports.
 Discussion ensued regarding a suggestion from Mr. Lewis about speeding up the process on some applications, when there are no outstanding issues and the conditions in the staff report are sufficient. Could the Chair be authorized to sign final orders under those circumstances? Consensus of the Commission was that signing of the final order could take place outside of a regular Planning Commission meeting, assuming that approval has been given in a regular meeting and the Commission is provided with a copy of the document prior to signing.
 Staff noted that there was a full Commission present if they wished to consider appointment of the Chair and Vice-Chair for the next term. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Milligan moved to reappoint Chair Balen and Vice-Chair Hauser to another term. Commissioner Meatzie seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
 B. Downtown District Zone: Discussion ensued regarding the process. Commissioner Hauser noted that, because of the Measure 56 requirements, all code amendments should be addressed at one time if possible. Mr. Lewis indicated that he would provide diagrams to the Commission to illustrate what the proposed draft language would do. Consensus of the Commission was to schedule a couple of future workshops to review the code language.
  C. City Planner Report: Previously addressed.
  D. Other Issues: None.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 7:55 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Hauser moved to adjourn. Commissioner Cutter seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan, City Clerk
APPROVED by the Waldport Planning Commission this 22nd day of July, 2003.
SIGNED by the Chair this 22nd day of July, 2003.
Sam Balen, Chair