APRIL 26, 2005
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair
Balen called the meeting to order at 6:3 p.m Chair Balen and Commissioners
Perry, Meatzie, Milligan, Power and Cutter answered the roll. A quorum was
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Cutter commented in regard to the upcoming Fourth of July fireworks, noting that celebrants will probably again trash the bay and affect the marine flora and fauna. His suggestion was to have the City provide disposal containers and enforce the dangerous use of fireworks in the hope that problems might be alleviated or prevented.
4. MINUTES: The Planning Commission considered the minutes from the March 22, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Meatzie moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Cutter seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: Chair Balen noted receipt of a Land Use workshop brochure, if anyone is interested in attending they should let City staff know.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Upon suggestion, the order of the public hearings was switched.
A. Case File 3-CU-PC-05, Newport-Waldport Acquisitions, Conditional Use Permit: Chair Balen opened the public hearing, calling for abstentions, bias, conflicts of interest and ex parte contact. Nothing was announced.
Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed the staff report, noting that the applicant was requesting an expansion of a conditional use in the Industrial Park.
Applicant’s presentation: Steve LaBeck addressed the Commission, noting that employees will probably use 5-6 parking spaces, but they get little or no customer traffic. They will store equipment indoors, but currently they have more product than they can house, which is why they were requesting the expansion. There were no other questions or comments. Chair Balen closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting to discussion.
Deliberations: Commissioner Milligan stated she was pleased to see the expansion, as it would help to bring more jobs to the area and there is plenty of space to expand. Commissioner Cutter noted that the City still needs to look at long-term heavy traffic in the area, but this application would not provide a dramatic increase in traffic. Commissioner Milligan moved to approve the application with the staff recommendations as proposed in the staff report. Commissioner Meatzie seconded and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
B. Continuation of Case File 1-PD-PC-05, Joseph & Nancy Penzola, Planned Development Application: Chair Balen opened the public hearing. No abstentions, bias, conflicts of interest or ex parte contact were announced.
Staff Report: Mr. Lewis noted that this was a continuation of the hearing from March 22, 2005. There had been concern expressed regarding fire turnarounds, and Mr. Lewis indicated receipt of a letter from the Fire Chief approving the revision in plans. Mr. Lewis then went on to review his staff analysis.
Chair Balen asked if two feet more of asphalt paving would be a hardship, and wondered if there was any reason not to extend the street out to the end of the property, so that people could stop a car on the paved area rather than gravel. Mr. Lewis responded that the only issue he could see was that where the last driveway came in it was getting close to the riparian area. Commissioner Perry pointed out that there would be a shoulder where people could park. A brief discussion ensued regarding sidewalks and whether they would be required.
Applicant’s Presentation: Dawn Pavitt addressed the Commission, indicating that they had met with the neighbors and tried to address their concerns. The applicant has completed the purchase of the property. Some grading had been done by the previous owner, but she noted that the CCR’s will require bringing the area back to a natural state. Ms. Pavitt gave a brief biography of the applicants, and noted that they had the best interests of the City at heart. She explained that they had eliminated the single-story buildings, have decreased the lot coverage and provided a hammerhead for emergency vehicles.
Chair Balen read the letter from the Smolens into the record, and asked for any additional public comments. Richard Hansen, Chris Graamans, Terry Remmers, Susan Swander, Randy Thissell, Alan Clark, Michelle Putman, Jane Clark, Bud Mullen, Joe Vandehey, Ray Grady, and Mike Smith addressed the Commission in regard to the positive aspects of the application.
Dean Richmond and Jody Sones addressed the Commission, noting that they had not been approached in regard to the application, and were concerned about the impact that eight new families would have on the neighborhood. They were very satisfied with the current nature of the area and felt that if the Planning Commission granted the application, this would set a precedent for everyone else to develop in the neighborhood. Susan Woodruff indicated that the plan had been improved from the original, and believed it to be a good project, but she felt it did not fit the parameters of a Planned Development. She also urged the Commission that, should the application be approved, sidewalks on Fayette and Alder should be required.
Applicants Rebuttal: Ms. Pavitt indicated she believed that there were tradeoffs in the application which would protect the City and the bay while still maintaining the residential flavor of the neighborhood. Chair Balen thanked the audience for their comments and closed the public hearing.
Deliberations: A lengthy discussion ensued regarding the application. Several members of the Commission declared themselves in favor of putting in a sidewalk on Alder and Fayette Street. It was noted that public access to the riparian area would be recorded as part of the CC & R’s. Commissioner Power indicated that she would like to see some on-street parking provided by the City on the other side of the street, though it was not necessary to require the developer to put that in. Commissioner Perry expressed concern about the removal of vegetation, stating that this was clearly an inherited violation and should be restored as quickly as possible. Ms. Pavitt noted that if the condition was placed to put in sidewalks, the applicant would like to remove the proposed pathway. She also indicated that the applicant was planning to replant the riparian area with native vegetation, and believed most of what was removed were noxious weeds. Chair Balen noted a concern regarding the spacing between buildings, and suggested reducing the front yard setbacks on lots 3 and 6. Commissioner Perry suggested reducing to 10'. Consensus of the Commission was favorable, and the applicant would be given some leeway in determining the final placement.
Commissioner Milligan moved to accept the new plan, with the modification of sidewalks on Fayette and Alder, removal of the footpath, an engineered turnaround for lots 1 and 2, and relocation of the front setbacks on lots 3 and 6 to within 10' of the lot line. Commissioner Cutter seconded. Commissioner Cutter then moved to amend the motion to add the 5-foot pathway back into the plan. Chair Balen seconded. Discussion ensued, following which the motion failed, with Commissioners Balen and Cutter voting “Aye”, all others voting “Nay”. The main motion was then considered. Commissioner Power asked about amending the motion to require restoration of the common area, but when informed about the fact that they would have to do that in any case, the amendment was not made. The motion then carried unanimously on a voice vote.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
A. Planning Report: The Commission considered the report. There was no discussion.
B. Continued Review of Proposed Development Code Additions/Revisions: The Commission determined to defer this issue.
C. Other Issues: None.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:53 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.
Reda A. Quinlan, City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 28th day of June, 2005.
SIGNED by the Chair this 28th day of June, 2005.
Samuel Balen, Chair