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.
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