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)

JULY 23, 2012

1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Smolen called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Chair Smolen and Commissioners Andrew, Hafner, Maré, Perry, and Woodruff, answered the roll. A quorum was present.
  Commissioner Andrew asked why Penny Russell’s letter of resignation (from the Planning Commission) was not included in the City Council’s meeting packet. City Planner Lewis will check into this and report back to the Commission.
  Commissioner Maré discussed the status of the Woodland Trail. The work crew is nearing completion of trail construction and is scheduled to work on the trail within the next few weeks. The City will purchase the rope railing to be installed along the switchback by the City and/or work crew. Signs and trail maps are planned along the trail. A South Lincoln Trails committee has been established through the recent Regional Tourism Workshop.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the June 25, 2012 Meeting. Commissioner Woodruffmoved to approve the minutes. Commissioner Maré seconded. Chair Smolen requested additional language under item #6 (Habitat for Humanity public hearing) regarding the building permit application that was submitted and correcting the staff report to identify the correct lot. There was consensus to add the language and consider approval of minutes at the next meeting.
  There was considerable discussion regarding approval of Findings and Conclusions. During the past few years the Planning Commission has typically authorized the Chair to sign the Findings and Conclusion as soon as they are prepared. The exception to this is if, during the public hearing, there are substantial changes to the recommended conditions of approval described in the staff report. In that case, the Findings are brought before the Planning Commission at their next meeting. There was consensus to begin emailing the draft Findings and Conclusions to Commissioners for comments. If changes to the draft Findings and Conclusion are requested the Commission will review the recommended change at the next meeting before the Chair is authorized to sign the Findings and Conclusion.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: Email from Chair Smolen identifying four ‘Questions to City Council’ (discussed in item #7 below).
  A. Video: Understanding Oregon’s Land Use Planning Program – Chapter 4: Making Oregon Land Use Decisions. Prior to the Call to Order and Roll Call, the Commission watched the above referenced video. The Commission requested the link for this entire video be forwarded to the commissioners so they could review the other chapters on their own time.
B. Discussion re: Questions and Concerns to be forwarded to City Council.
 The Commission discussed the following four questions submitted by Chair Smolen.
 Question 1. In order for the Planning Commission to fill its current vacancy, Commissioner Russell’s letter of resignation must be accepted by City Council. Why has City Council not received copies of her resignation and declared a vacancy? (As noted in #3 above, City Planner Lewis will check into this and report back to the Commission.
 Question 2. In 2011, Planning Commission meetings were cancelled in February, May, September, November and December. Continuing into 2012, March and May have been cancelled. Planning Commissioners have asked for monthly meetings on multiple occasions. With ten potential Development Code Amendments pending, I have to wonder, why we are told there is nothing on the agenda? There was Commission consensus, as discussed at last month’s meeting, to have Planning Commission meetings every month with the possible exception of conflicts with holidays.
  3. In many Cities, Code Enforcement works with the Planning Commission, and here, Planning Commissioners have asked repeatedly to have the Code Enforcement Officer attend a meeting and at the very least, explain his process to us. It seems reasonable for the City to allow and desire a close working relationship with employees and volunteers. Why has The Code Enforcement Officer not been allowed to work with us? The Commission discussed their desire to meet with the Code Enforcement Officer in order to understand the process. A meeting will likely need to occur on a Friday when the Code Enforcement Officer is working in Waldport. Lewis will talk to the Code Enforcement Officer about a meeting. There was Commission discussion and request to receive written reports in their monthly packets. There was discussion about the Planning Commission’s purview over code enforcement.
  4. Could it be possible when Commissioners express a concern,(either on more than one occasion or with more than one Commissioner) have that public concern considered a potential action item determined by City Council? The Commission questioned how concerns discussed at Planning Commission meetings are forwarded to City Council. There was a request to add the status of Planning Commission approvals to the Land Use/Building Activity report.
  The Commission discussed meeting with the City Council. There was consensus that the Planning Commission would like to meet with the City Council at a City Council meeting versus inviting them to a Planning Commission meeting. There was discussion that the four questions discussed above are primarily Planning Commission questions/concerns. The Commission would like to introduce the Commissioners to the City Council provide a briefing on Planning Commission duties. Chair Smolen volunteered to talk to the Mayor about having the Planning Commission meet with the City Council during one of their meetings, possibly in September.
  C. Potential Development Code Amendments
  The Commission reviewed and discussed the July 16, 2012 memorandum regarding Potential Development Code Amendments. There was consensus to prioritize the following amendments:
  1st Priority: Alsea Bay Erosion Hazards Beach Erosion Mitigation – Comprehensive/Estuary Plan Amendments
  2nd /3rd Priorities: Yaquina John Point Land Use & Transportation Plan Implementing Plan and Code Amendments and Zone Change of Property north of U.S. Forest Service Property per Yaquina John Point Plan recommendation.
  4th Priority: Public Streets and Bicycle/Pedestrian Facilities Connectivity Standards
  5th Priority: C-2 General Commercial Zone Development Code Amendments
  D. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed the 2012 Land Use/Building Permit Activity Table for period June 18, 2012 through July 16, 2012.
  E. Other Issues. The Planning Commission prefers the ‘round table’ seating in the Fire Hall Meeting room or a similar set up in the City Council Meeting Room when there are no public hearings.
  There was a request to review the Planning Commissioner Term Limits.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 4:15 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda Q. Eckerman, City Recorder
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 27th day of August, 2012.
SIGNED by the Chair this 27th day of August, 2012.
Sherrie Smolen, Chair