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)

JANUARY 25, 2005

1. Call to Order and Roll Call: Chair Balen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Perry, Milligan, Cowie, Cutter and Cvar answered the roll. Commissioner Meatzie arrived at 6:35 p.m. A quorum was present.
2. Citizen Comments and Concerns: None.
3. Commission Comments and Concerns: Commissioner Cutter noted recent events in SE Asia have served to confirm the need for addressing tsunami concerns. The Marine Science Center recently did an informal training, and he has DVD videos of the training that he would be willing to provide to the City for citizen review. Commissioner Cvar suggested providing a copy to the Library as well.
4. Minutes: The Commission considered the minutes from the December 13, 2004 meeting. Commissioner Cowie moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Perry seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. Correspondence: None.
6. Public Hearings:
  A. Case File 3-CU-PC-04, Dahl and Dahl: Chair Balen opened the Public Hearing, calling for abstentions, conflicts of interest, bias or ex parte contact. None were announced.
  Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed the staff report, explaining that the applicant was requesting a conditional use to erect a mini-storage complex in the Industrial Park. Chair Balen asked about the minimum height of the screening requirement, and Mr. Lewis responded 6 feet, either in low vegetation or chain link fence. He also noted that he was unsure where water runoff would be dissipated, maybe some sort of retention facility. Commissioner Milligan asked about the zoning on the adjacent residential property, as there is apparently a business conducted there.
  Applicant presentation: Nic Dahl, Dahl & Dahl Inc., addressed the Commission. He indicated that a catch basin would be installed to direct runoff to the natural gully to the south of the property. The number of units may change as buildings are installed, depending on things like fire distance requirements and preferred sizes of storage units. He noted that they would like to start with 250 units, and then adjust the unit sizes and numbers as demand increases. There will be no uncovered open storage areas. The ground cover will be rock until all buildings are in position, then the area will be paved. They will not offer 24-hour access without special accommodations, the plan was that the area would be locked up from 10:00 p.m. to 5:00 a.m, and security cameras will be installed. The office will be the same as for the transfer station, and Mr. Dahl noted that there is a public restroom available at that facility. Additionally, there will be porta-potties on site. Commissioner Cowie asked about an estimate on the number of vehicles per day, and Mr. Dahl responded that there were 5-12 vehicles per day at their Toledo site, where they have 145 units. Commissioner Cutter asked about the type of fencing being proposed, and Mr. Dahl responded that they were anticipating on installing a cyclone fence with 3 strands of barbed wire on top. They would put in vision strips on the residential and the school side if requested. Mr. Dahl noted that this was a quiet use of property, and would offer screening of the industrial park from the school.
  Chair Balen closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Planning Commission meeting. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding landscaping. Chair Balen noted that there is not a requirement for landscaping in the Development Code, but it would be nice if some planting could be done in key areas for the benefit of customers and neighbors. Commissioner Cowie commented that increased traffic may eventually become an issue, not necessarily with this application but with additional development of the area. Mr. Lewis responded that the Transportation System Plan does recommend a new access to the Industrial property, though it does not include a specific route. There are several possibilities at this point, but no concrete plans. Commissioner Milligan moved to approve the Dahl & Dahl application as written. Commissioner Meatzie seconded. Commissioner Cvar offered an amendment to the motion, to include the suggested conditions in the staff report. Commissioner Cutter seconded the amendment. Mr. Lewis noted that the drive surfaces were not addressed, but the applicant had stated in the presentation that once the buildings were completed, the area would be paved. The Cityís Public Works department will also ensure that the drainage is installed properly. The amendment carried unanimously on a voice vote. The main motion, as amended, then carried unanimously on a voice vote. Mr. Lewis asked the will of the Commission in regard to the findings, and consensus of the Commission was that if there were changes in the proposed conditions it would be good to bring the findings back to a subsequent meeting for approval, but if no changes are proposed, the Chair could sign the findings upon completion.
  B. Case File 4-CU-PC-04: Johnston/Joy Conditional Use: Chair Balen opened the Public Hearing, calling for abstentions, conflicts of interest, bias or ex parte contact. None were announced.
  Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed the staff report, explaining that these applicants were also requesting a conditional use to erect a mini-storage complex in the Industrial Park.
  Applicant Presentation: Dan Johnston addressed the Commission, noting that they were planning to leave some vegetation along with the screening fence, and will also try to put in other amenities such as rock or brick work on the sides of the buildings facing Kathleen Street. They were proposing a gravel driving surface at present, though eventually it will be at lease partially paved. They were proposing 24-hour access, as there would be a managerís residence on-site and good security. They were planning on building in two phases, with 180 units in the first and 120 units in the second. They were proposing some open storage for boats or RVís, but only a small area, which will be screened by existing vegetation.
  Chair Balen closed the public hearing and reopened the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Cutter moved to approve the conditional use permit with the proposed conditions in the staff report and added two requests, that the open storage area be reasonably obscured by vegetation and that the applicant use attractive building material on the Kathleen Street side of the buildings, as offered in the presentation. Commissioner Cvar seconded. Following a brief discussion, the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. It was noted that the findings could be expedited.
  C. Case File 2-S-94 (2005 Amendment): Modification to Whispering Woods Subdivision: Chair Balen opened the Public Hearing. Commissioner Perry noted he is one of the surrounding property owners, but did not feel it would particularly bias him. The applicant indicated that he had no problem with Commissioner Perryís participation in the hearing. There were no other declarations of bias, conflict of interest, or ex parte contact.
  Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed the staff report, noting that the applicant was asking for a modification and time extension to the tentative approval of the subdivision. He explained that the application had submitted a revised plot plan and was also asking to reduce the sidewalk requirement to one side. Commissioner Perry noted that if this were a new application, the requested modification to the sidewalk requirement might be considered a variance, and wondered if the Commission had the authority to grant a variance at this stage. Commissioner Cutter explained that the original application predated the sidewalk requirement, and Mr. Lewis clarified that the sidewalk requirement was a condition of the 2002 extension.
  Applicantís Presentation: Buzz Schulte addressed the Commission. He clarified that the subdivision was initially approved with 62 lots, which was the actual density allowed under current zoning requirements. He had voluntarily changed it from 62 to 48 lot for several reasons, mostly because he felt it would not be appropriate for the neighborhood or property. The plan before the Commission was the result of meeting with surrounding property owners to ensure their concerns were addressed. It provided for more open space and a buffering zone between existing developed properties and the proposed development. Mr. Schulte explained that the engineer had erred slightly in the rendition of the plan, as Lot 25 would also contain open space. Mr. Schulte noted that a homeownerís association will be set up to ensure the open spaces are maintained, and that his intent was to maintain as many of the existing trees as possible. He would also agree to prohibit manufactured homes, as stick-built homes would be more adaptable to the site conditions. The request for the reduction in the sidewalk requirement was to allow for a more rural nature, and Mr. Schulte pointed out that there were no other sidewalks in the area. The original subdivision, as approved, did not have any sidewalks. Mr. Schulte explained that he had originally offered to assist in the realignment of Norwood Drive but had never been able to ascertain whether the City had the right to use a particular piece of property through which the alignment could have taken place. During a previous approval process the Commission at the time had decided they had no need to hold him to the commitment to realign the street. Mr. Schulteís latest offer to the City was to designate $500 per lot when sold to either the realignment process or to a fund for parks if the City obtains funding for the realignment from another source. Mr. Schulte assured the Commission that he will develop CC & Rís which will be recorded to ensure that the proposed subdivision will be developed as he has outlined, regardless of whether he personally develops it or not.
  Alan Canfield noted that he had previously spoken in opposition to Mr. Schulteís plan, but Mr. Schulte had revised his plans in response to the concerns of the neighborhood. Mr. Canfield indicated that he heartily supported the revised plan, and felt that he spoke for the other neighbors in his endorsement. Howard Uhl, Charles Church and Shirley Hanes all spoke of concerns regarding the additional traffic that would be generated as a result of this development. Chair Balen noted that increased traffic might promote the need for the City to look at correcting the situation. Mr. Lewis informed the Commission that the City has applied for a Scenic Byways grant specifically to address the intersection of Norwood, Starr and Highway 101. The City will find out toward the end of February whether it was successful in obtaining the grant. Doug Robinson added his support to the statement from Mr. Canfield, and noted that he felt the issue of the intersection was not something which could be solved by the Planning Commission. Bruce Bishard expressed concern regarding the availability of water and sewer to serve the proposed subdivision, and Public Works Director McClintock assured him that the capacity of the existing infrastructure was adequate.
  Chair Balen closed the Public Hearing and reopened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberation. A lengthy discussion ensued. The applicant withdrew the request for sidewalk modification. Commissioner Cutter moved to approve the request with the following conditions: sidewalks on both sides, and a one-year extension to April 5, 2006 as per the current code requirements. Commissioner Milligan seconded. Commissioner Cvar moved to amend the motion to include leaving as many trees as possible and not allowing manufactured homes. Commissioner Milligan seconded the amendment. Discussion ensued. It was determined that the Commission could not regulate site-built vs manufactured homes, but they could encourage the developer to implement CC&Rís that could regulate them. Following this discussion, Commissioner Cvar withdrew his motion, Commissioner Milligan withdrew her second. Mr. Lewis noted that he will bring the findings back to the next Commission meeting for approval, and will include all current conditions that are placed on the subdivision from previous planning actions. The motion to approve the request then carried, with Commissioner Cvar dissenting. Mr. Schulte indicated that he will resubmit a corrected plot plan, and will develop and implement the CC&Rís as stated.
7. Discussion/Action Items:
  A. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis distributed his written report.
  B. Memo re Term Expirations: It was noted that the terms for Commissioners Meatzie, Milligan and Cvar were expired. Commissioners Meatzie and Milligan consented to serve for another term. Commissioner Cvar declined, but indicated he would serve until a replacement was found.
  C. Other issues: None.
8. Adjournment: At 9:25 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan, City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 22nd day of February, 2005.
SIGNED by the Chair this 22nd day of February, 2005.
Samuel Balen, Chair