MAY 27, 2003
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the meeting to order at
6:30 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Hauser, Cutter and Cvar answered the
roll. Commissioners Milligan, Meatzie and Uhl were absent. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Cutter raised a concern
regarding the skatepark and the increased traffic and pedestrian use in that
area. People were parking alongside the park, there’s no pedestrian walkway,
and he’s concerned about kids and cars. Chair Balen agreed, noting that it
would be appropriate for the Council to look at how to control the traffic and
means for promoting accessibility. Staff noted that the Council had already
requested that a pedestrian/bicycle path be delineated on Crestline Drive, and
the Traffic and Public Safety Committee was also looking at means for
controlling traffic speed in that area. Commissioner Cvar suggested adding
"bumps" to the line delineating the pedestrian/bicycle path to help
warn motorists.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the March 25, 2003
meeting. Commissioner Cvar moved to approve the minutes presented, Commissioner
Hauser seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Chair Balen opened the Public Hearing on Case File #2-S-94
(2003 Amendment), Lewis A. Schulte, Whispering Woods. The applicant was
requesting a time extension and a modification to the requirement for sidewalks
to allow for only one side. Chair Balen asked for any abstentions, bias or
conflicts of interest. None were noted.
Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written
report, noting that the applicant is requesting a modification and time
extension to the tentative approval of the Whispering Woods Subdivision. The
modification requests approval to construct sidewalks on one side of the street
versus two sides. Chair Balen clarified for the benefit of the audience that
these were the only two issues that would be addressed as part of the public
hearing. Mr. Lewis noted a letter of opposition had been submitted subsequent to
the construction of the packet, opposing any modification until environmental
and other issues have been addressed. He then reviewed his written report.
Commissioner Hauser asked why the
applicant was asking for a time extension at this time. Mr. Lewis responded that
in talking with the applicant, the request was for a modification to the
sidewalk requirement, and the time extension was secondary to that.
Applicant’s Presentation: Ray Wells, representing Mr. Schulte, addressed the Planning Commission. He
stated that the request was to do away with the requirement for sidewalks on
both sides of the street, and indicated that this was for economic reasons. They
were willing to put in sidewalks on one side of the street. Mr. Wells noted that
if the rest of the subdivisions in that area had sidewalks on both sides it
would be no problem. However, when finished, this area will be the only area to
have sidewalks at all. Mr. Wells stated that, economically, it appeared that
things may be improving.
Proponents Testimony: Nothing further.
Opponents Testimony: The
following individuals addressed the Planning Commission: area residents Alan
Canfield, Toni Rolfe, Bert Soderlund, Charles Church and Jay Corrinet; Tim
Mugleston, developer of Norwood Heights; Pam Mugleston, real estate agent and
resident; Ray Reddick and Ray Bregenzer, both former Planning Commission members
and area residents. They expressed concerns regarding the size of the lots, the
type of housing that would be built and the impact that may have on the existing
developed properties, the geological stability of the area, the impact that the
proposed development would have on the environment, the condition of the road
and the intersection at Starr Street and Highway 101, and the number of
extensions which have already been granted to this subdivision. They urged the
Planning Commission to deny the request to reduce the sidewalk requirement and
grant a time extension.
Applicants Rebuttal: Mr.
Wells addressed the Commission. He noted that it appeared the people who spoke
have a problem with the Comprehensive Plan, which dictates the minimum lot size,
rather than the developer. The developer is planning on putting in affordable
housing units. Mr. Wells noted that there is an engineered drainage plan, and
all of the criteria had been met at the time of submittal. The issue at hand was
the sidewalks and the time extension.
Chair Balen then closed the publichearing.
Deliberations: Chair Balen
noted that there are other plans to address the intersection issue. Commissioner
Cvar commented that over a year ago the sidewalk issue was before them, and he
has seen no new thoughts or evidence presented. He felt that the requirement for
sidewalks on both sides should remain, as someone needs to carry the burden of
the requirements once the decision has been made in that direction. He indicated
that he had a problem with granting an additional extension, as requirements
have changed and one way to address them would be through a resubmittal.
Commissioner Cutter stated that he concurred with Commissioner Cvar about the
extensions, noting that development requirements and the development code do
change. He also noted that he is currently setting aside money to purchase the
land next to him in order to avoid development of that property. He indicated
that this was not a direct suggestion to the audience, but he urged them to
pursue any and all opportunities to preserve their property. Affordable housing
is important, and is a benefit to the City. In regard to the extension, he
stated that the Commission has been looking at this subdivision for eight years
now, and the extension is still valid for a year. Commissioner Cutter concluded
by stating that he was not in favor of either a time extension or a modification
to the sidewalk requirements. Commissioner Hauser mentioned that she remembers
all of the extensions which have been granted, and felt that all of the
decisions made had been valid. Development should be supported, but the sidewalk
requirement should not be modified. As for the extension, the developer has the
right to come back and request a time extension in 2004, when the current
extension expires. Chair Balen noted that the intersection had been reviewed,
and a conceptual plan has been developed which could address the situation, now
the City just needed to engineer and fund the project. How soon that will happen
is unknown, but he hoped that the City could see its way clear to diverting
funds from other projects to address this as quickly as
possible.
Commissioner Hauser moved to deny the request for the reduction of
sidewalks and the granting of a time extension. Commissioner Cutter seconded,
and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Mr. Reddick asked whether a performance bond was required from an outside
developer, and Mr. Wells responded that the developer doesn’t usually put up
the bond, the contractor does. Mr. Mugleston noted that he felt 6000 square feet
is just too small to properly develop a lot in that area, and wondered if the
zoning could be changed to require a larger lot. Chair Balen indicated that the
Planning Commission could make such a recommendation to the Council, and Mr.
Lewis added that this would need to be done as a text amendment and/or a map
amendment. If this were done to an existing zone, then all lots within that zone
would have to comply with the same requirement. Otherwise, a new zoning district
would need to be developed. This also would not impact legally created existing
lots. Further discussion ensued, but no further action was taken.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
A. City Planner Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report.
B. City Lighting Issues: Commissioner Cutter reviewed his written materials.
The Commission commended Commissioner Cutter on his presentation. A copy of the
report is attached to the minutes. Chair Balen felt that the best way to handle
this issue in the future is to make lighting consultants more aware of the
impact of the choices before them. The people in the lighting industry are
probably dealing with this issue as best they can, according to Chair Balen.
Commissioner Cutter confirmed, noting that lighting salespeople are dealing with
issues such as ambient lighting, motion sensors, and lower impact lighting. At
other end of the scale were those customers who want to flood their entire
property at the flip of a switch. Chair Balen indicated that the Planning
Commission could consider the code and maybe propose some changes to existing
language.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:30 p.m., 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 Planning Commission this 24th day of June, 2003.
SIGNED by the Chair this 24th day of June, 2003.
Sam Balen, Chair