JULY 27, 2015
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Woodruff called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. Chair Woodruff and Commissioners Peterson, Andrew, Hafner and Yorks answered the roll. Commissioners Egan and Gordon were excused. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the June 22, 2015 meeting. Commissioner Andrew moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Hafner seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: City Planner Lewis noted a series of letters which had come in with regard to the Public Hearing, they had been separately distributed to the Commission.
6. PUBLIC HEARING - Case File #1-PD-PC-15 Weber Investments, LLC Application for Planned Development (Continued):
Chair Woodruff opened the Public Hearing, calling for abstentions, bias, conflicts of interest, or ex parte contact. Commissioner Andrew noted her previous statement regarding the fact that she lives on Skyline Terrace. There were no objections to any member of the Commission hearing the case.
City Planner Lewis reviewed his memo included in the packet materials, which outlined additional information provided by the applicant to answer questions from the previous meeting with regard to Norwood Heights CC&Rs, establishment of a Homeowners Association, draft CC&Rs for the proposed planned development, information from the City Attorney regarding rental restrictions, and cluster development vs standard size lots.
Commissioner Hafner confirmed that Lily Lane was never completed, and Mr. Lewis responded that it was public right of way off of Norwood Drive, but had never been brought up to City standards. Commissioner Andrew asked who had expanded the size of the subject property, and it was surmised that this had been done by the previous property owner.
Oral testimony was provided by the following individuals: Joan Quill, Bernice Barnett, Linda Christenson, Alan Canfield. In summary, questions and concerns about the proposed planned development from both the oral and written testimony included the following:
- The Fire Chief had noted concerns about the proposed access to the property and the size of the hammerhead.
- The status of Tax Lot 143, which was included in the Norwood Heights Subdivision and the concern that CC&Rs would be conflicting, which may result in litigation.
- The impact of the additional housing on the existing and proposed streets, for both traffic and parking issues.
- It was felt that the character of the proposed development was not complimentary to the existing subdivision, due to housing density and the conditions of the private road.
It was noted that the City does not administer CC&Rs, it would be up to the two homeowners associations to work out the differences. Mr. Weber acknowledged that the one tax lot would be subject to the Norwood Heights CC&Rs, but the proposed CC&Rs for the new development were not in conflict with the existing ones for Norwood Heights.
Mr. Weber addressed the Commission and the audience, explaining his reasons for wanting to develop the property and indicating that he would be willing to meet with and work with the Norwood Heights Homeowners Association.
Chair Woodruff closed the Public Hearing and opened the Commission meeting for deliberations.
Mr. Lewis noted that Public Works was planning on looping the water system from Skyline Terrace to improve water flows, and the proposed conditions of approval included the recommendations from the Fire Chief for the street improvements.
Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Peterson moved to approve the planned development application, with the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Yorks seconded, and the motion carried, with Commissioners Woodruff, Yorks, Peterson and Hafner voting "Aye", Commissioner Andrew voting "Nay". City Planner Lewis confirmed that he would send out the draft findings to the Commission and allow for a week for comments before finalizing them and sending them to the property owner and those who provided testimony or otherwise showed interest in receiving them. Once finalized, there would be a 15-day appeal period.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
A. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed his written report.
B. Other Issues: Nothing further.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 3:50 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned.
Reda Q. Eckerman, City Recorder
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 14th day of December, 2015.
SIGNED by the Chair this 14th day of December, 2015.
Ray Woodruff, Chair