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

SEPTEMBER 27, 2005


1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Vice Chair Perry and Commissioners Meatzie, Power, Cutter, and Streeter answered the roll. Commissioner Milligan was absent. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None
4. MINUTES: Commissioner Cutter moved to approve the minutes of the August 23, 2005 meeting. Commissioner Meatzie seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
  A. Case File #4-CU-PC-05, Steve Estabrooks, Orange Mate, Inc: Chair Balen opened the public hearing, calling for abstentions, conflict of interest, bias, or ex parte contact. None were declared.
Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report and noted that no written testimony was received.
Applicant’s Presentation: The applicant provided an explanation of the Orange Mate, Inc. products and answered questions regarding parking, drainage, residual materials, and earth spoils.
Oral Testimony: There was no oral testimony.
Deliberations: Chair Balen closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberations. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Cutter moved to approve the findings with the conditions identified in the staff report. Commissioner Meatzie seconded. The motion carried unanimously.
  B. Case File #1-V-PC-05, Don Chin: Chair Balen opened the public hearing, calling for abstentions, conflict of interest, bias, or ex parte contact. None were declared.
Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report, noting that there had been five letters received in regard to the application that were distributed to the Planning Commission prior to the meeting. The letters expressed opposition to the application because of concerns of a possible business operating out of the proposed building and parking on or near Waldport Heights Drive.
Applicant’s Presentation: The applicant answered questions stating that his lots were consolidated for tax purposes, that he is not operating a business nor has any intentions of operating a business; that he does repair on his own vehicles; that he has fishing equipment, air compressors, welding equipment, etc. He explained that the hill drops 8-10 feet behind the existing building.
Opponent’s Presentation: Kyleen Rowley commented that she lives adjacent to the south and completed a house addition that has garage access from the side versus the front of the house, and that the proposed garage/shop on the applicant’s property will devalue her property.
Applicant’s Rebuttal: There was no rebuttal.
Deliberations: Chair Balen closed the public hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting for deliberations. Chair Balen stated the need for an additional exit at the rear of the building. In reference to written testimony, Commissioner Power encouraged the applicant to have visitors park in the driveway and avoid parking along the street; confirmed with staff that the City has not received complaints in the past regarding parking or business operations. Commissioner Cutter questioned whether or not the application meets the minimum variance necessary because the proposed building may be able to be moved back (east) and further from the Waldport Heights right-of-way.  Chair Balen confirmed that the proposed garage/shop location is the only possible location of the building due to the siting of the existing house, easements and property lines; and requested the applicant return to the Planning Commission with topographic information that would enable the Planning Commission to determine whether or not it is feasible to locate the proposed building further east. Commissioner Power moved to continue the public hearing discussion until the applicant provides topographic information, and locations of easements, edge of pavement, and existing septic. Commissioner Streeter seconded. The motion carried, with Chair Balen and Commissioners Perry, Meatzie, Power and Streeter voting "Yes", Commissioner Cutter voting "No".
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
  A. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report.
  B. Other Issues: Nothing further.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:07 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted, (as amended)
Reda A. Quinlan, City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 25th day of October, 2005.
SIGNED by the Chair this 25th day of October, 2005.
Samuel Balen, Chair