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

AUGUST 22, 2006


1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Meatzie, Perry, Milligan, Power, Cutter and Streeter answered the roll. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes of the July 25 meeting. Commissioner Cutter moved to accept the minutes as presented. Commissioner Power seconded. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Case File 1-V-PC-06, Kryger Variance Application: Chair Balen opened the public hearing, calling for any abstentions, bias, conflicts of interest, or ex parte contact. None were declared.
  Staff Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed the staff report, noting that the applicant was requesting a variance to the front yard setback. Chair Balen asked why the building permit was required, and was informed that it was because it was a structural addition to the property, though not attached to the house. Mr. Lewis also noted that there had been a letter of support submitted by Eileen and Richard Bourassa.
  Applicantís Presentation: Ms. Kryger and her architect, Glen Small, addressed the Commission and provided a to-scale three-dimensional model of the proposed addition. Ms. Kryger noted the plans have been approved by a structural engineer. The project included replacing rotting decks on the back, and the proposed structural addition to the front will match the existing on the back. Commissioner Meatzie asked about the extension into the front yard, and the architect responded that the plan had been somewhat altered and the structure would project no more than six feet, rather than the eight feet originally identified.
  Deliberations: Commissioner Perry asked about what kind of projections are allowed without a variance, and Mr. Lewis responded that they were usually items which did not require a building permit. Commissioner Milligan moved to approve the application. Commissioner Streeter seconded. Commissioner Perry commented that it was awkward to grant this as a variance, as it could not really fit the criteria for a variance since it was not necessitated by any physical issue. He suggested that the ordinance should address this kind of ornamentation in a different manner. Mr. Lewis noted that he would like to change the recommended conditions to reflect the proposed alteration, with the trellis constructed as on the approved plan, and the beam not extending further than six feet. The motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Consensus of the Commission was to have the Chair sign the findings upon their completion.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
  A. Potential Development Code Amendments: The Commission reviewed the potential code amendment language provided in the packet materials. Chair Balen noted that the ocean and bay setbacks had been referred to the Commission by the Council. Mr. Lewis indicated that the item thatís not really addressed in the amendment is the setback for bay front property where there is not a slope. Discussion ensued regarding the impact on current and potential development, the variance process, and the issue of flood zone standards. It was determined that Mr. Lewis obtain further information from the GIS system to determine the potential impact of the revisions, and provide it to the Commission for review.
  The Commission then reviewed the proposed density calculations on ocean and bay front property, and consensus was to approve the language as presented.
  In regard to changing outright permitted uses in an IP Zone, the Commission felt that any applications for use in an IP zone should be reviewed. Consensus was that there was no need to change the language.
  Mr. Lewis pointed out an inconsistency in the land partition approval process, which required that a partition, which was processed administratively, could only be finally recorded upon approval by the Planning Commission. Discussion ensued, and consensus of the Commission was to strike the language as suggested in Option 2.
  Regarding other possible code amendments, the Commission decided to discuss the topics individually at future meetings.
  B. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:03 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 26th day of September, 2006.
SIGNED by the Chair this 26th day of September, 2006.
Samuel Balen, Chair