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

OCTOBER 23, 2017


1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Woodruff called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m.
2. OATH OF OFFICE: City Recorder Eckerman administered the oath of office to Jerry Phillips.
3. ROLL CALL: Chair Woodruff and Commissioners Peterson, Stole, Phillips, Yorks and Barham answered the roll. A quorum was present.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the June 26, 2017 meeting. Commissioner Barham moved to approve the minutes as presented. Commissioner Yorks seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
6. CORRESPONDENCE: None, other than that related to the public hearing.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
 A. #1-PD-PC-17 - Vista View Planned Development: Chair Woodruff opened the public hearing, and called for abstentions, bias, conflicts of interest and ex parte contact: Commissioner Barham indicated that he owned property in the area, had participated in brief conversations with his neighbors, and also noted that his wife had submitted a letter of testimony which was included in the packet materials. He stated he felt he could make a fair and unbiased decision. There were no objections to his participation in the public hearing.
 City Planner Lewis reviewed the written staff report, and noted that the packet also included six letters from the following persons: Paul Virtue, June Barham, Tim Mugleston, Louis Orndorff, Ray Bregenzer, and Bernice Barnett. The primary issues addressed by these letters were identified in the staff report. Subsequently, additional letters have been received from the following: Joyce Wilson, Dennis & Laurie Meredith, Hollis Lundeen (3), Laurance McLamb, and William & Leigh Ratteree. Copies of these letters were distributed at the meeting. The applicant was proposing to access the property via an extension to Norwood Drive and a circular drive to access the individual properties, with an extension to the south to eventually meet up with Kelsie Lane. Comments were also received from Public Works and Central Oregon Coast Fire and Rescue District. The Fire District indicated that the proposed 20' paved street width within the 30' right-of-way was adequate, as long as parking would not be permitted. The City recommended installation of sidewalks at the time of the street construction, and an installation of standard curbs rather than rolled curbs. Mr. Lewis noted that there would actually be five lots that would be less than 60' in width, rather than the one which had been identified in the table in section C-2 of the staff report. Norwood Drive has a 20' pavement width, and Mr. Lewis noted that the City would be improving the radius of the nearly 90 turn partway up the road. The applicant was also proposing a 20' pavement width and both the Public Works Department and the Fire District were amenable, as long as no parking would be allowed. Norwood Drive is identified as a local street which would have a capacity of 1000 trips per day. According to the ITE Trip Generation Report (8th Edition), a single family residence generates 10 trips per day. There are currently 72 lots within the Norwood Heights subdivision, and the proposed subdivision would add an additional 34 lots, so at total buildout between the two subdivisions, the anticipated traffic would exceed the recommended capacity. A possible solution to alleviate this would be the street extension to the south property line in Phase 2 of the Vista View development, which would then eventually join up to the Kelsie Lane-Forestry Way north-south connection that was identified as the "Norwood Drive Extension (Project #S4) in the City's "Yaquina John Point Land Use & Transportation Plan". Therefore, one of the recommended conditions proposed in the staff report was to require a street extension to the south property line to be constructed when the Vista View development exceeded 19 lots. Mr. Lewis noted that the applicant was proposing to dedicate an open space totaling roughly 25% of the property, along with a public nature trail through that open space which would connect the east edge of the property to the west edge, along the south edge of Lots 11-13 and then south to Kelsie Lane. This would connect to a planned trail that would eventually connect the Norwood Drive extension to Highway 101. Additionally, the applicant would be paying a park assessment fee calculated to be $16,879,50, which may be paid by phase. The infrastructure to provide utilities to the properties would need to be coordinated with and approved by the City, and Mr. Lewis noted that if the applicant proceeded with the proposal to connect to an existing pump station at the Forest Service, upgrades will need to be provided to accommodate the increased flows.
 Attorney Dennis Bartoldus addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He distributed photographs of various shots of the property proposed for development, along with GIS photos, and previous plats for Norwood Heights and its various additions. Mr. Bartoldus noted that other developments in that area have not put in additional roads, and the applicant was proposing an extension of Norwood Drive to the current standards in that area. The street at the south end would eventually join Kelsie and then down to Highway 101. He cautioned that requests to improve the existing Norwood Drive to accommodate projected impacts from the new subdivision may be considered an exactment, and cited Dolan vs Tigard, Nolan vs the California Coastal Commission, and Lucas vs. South Carolina as arguments to not charge one developer for all of the improvements to existing infrastructure. The City would be getting an extension of Norwood Drive, the continuation at the south end to the eventual link with Kelsie Way, and the open space and nature trail as requested. He noted that the City had that day requested to have the developer not only provide the easement, but also build the trail, to which his client had agreed. The proposal for 34 lots was far less than the 56 lots that would be allowed by City standards, and even less than the 40 lots that had been tentatively identified in the Yaquina John Point Land Use Transportation Plan. Mr. Bartoldus explained that a planned unit subdivision was intended to allow for modifications to the standard subdivision requirements, and his client was requesting a reduction in lot size for some lots, a reduction for lot frontage on some lots, and a street width of 20' with no parking allowed on the street. In exchange for these considerations, his client was offering a large open area, a public pedestrian trail, an extension of Norwood Drive and access to the southern extension to Kelsie Way, and five-foot sidewalks on one side of the street, which will meet all standards that Public Works and the Fire District require. One issue was the requirement that the extension to the south be put in after 19 lots, since based on the map and the projected traffic counts it shouldn't need to be done until 100 lots in the area have been developed. Following the presentation, Mr. Bartoldus indicated he was available for questions.
 Commissioner Yorks asked if the open area proposed to be dedicated was, in fact, buildable land. Mr. Bartoldus responded affirmatively, noting that current building practices lend themselves to construction on topographically challenged property, and citing his own home as an example of such. Though potentially buildable, his client felt that the open area would provide a buffer to adjoining properties and allow the addition of the trail system.
 Opponents Presentation: The following people addressed the Commission: Laurence Klein, Jim Shepherd, Paul Laakso, Bernice Barnett, Ray Bregenzer, Kevin Quill and Bill Ratteree. Concerns cited included potential drainage issues, the proposed trail access, impact of increased traffic on the existing Norwood Drive with regard to truck traffic during construction as well as property owner traffic upon completion, surrounding property notification requirements, street width and pedestrian access, fire/life safety, school bus and emergency vehicle access, geological hazards and erosion, affordable housing, and the timeline for the street extension to Kelsie Lane.
 Proponents Presentation: Phil Splunik addressed the Commission, noting that the purpose for a planned development was to allow for some modifications to accommodate topographical challenges and provide some enhancements in exchange. He urged the Commission to approve the application.
 Rebuttal: Mr. Bartoldus noted that none of the issues raised would be a cause to legally deny the application. Currently there are 72 lots either built or available to be built on, but to the best of his knowledge there have been no concerns raised about traffic safety or emergency vehicle access. He noted that the development would be taking place over 20 years, it would not be happening overnight. The first phase will include an adequate cul de sac or hammerhead at the end of the street to accommodate emergency vehicles until the future phases are developed. As for drainage, the entire subdivision drainage will be engineered and will be capable of handling the flow of rain. If the developer was required to install sidewalks on both sides of the street, it could potentially impact the current use of the right of way by eliminating parking areas utilized at present. Mr. Bartoldus noted that the City has long anticipated that Norwood would become a through street, which would also address some access and increased traffic concerns, and asked that the Yaquina John Point Land Use and Transportation Plan be incorporated into the record by reference.
 Chair Woodruff closed the public hearing and opened the Commission meeting for deliberations. He noted that there had been additional information submitted by the applicant, and suggested that the deliberations be continued to the next meeting. Discussion ensued. Commissioner Yorks noted that some of the issues are apparently outside of the planned development, and wished to hear from the City Attorney with regard to the case laws cited and the determination of responsibility for necessary street improvements, as well as to allow time for consideration of the additional written testimony and exhibits received that day, and review of the Yaquina John Point Land Use and Transportation Plan. He moved to continue the public hearing to the next meeting. Commissioner Stole seconded. The motion carried, and consensus of the Commission was to leave the record open until November 6 for submission of additional information or testimony, and to schedule the continuation of the public hearing to December 4 at 2:00 p.m.
 The Commission took a short recess at 4:00 p.m., and resumed the meeting at 4:10 p.m.
 B. Subdivision File #1-S-PC-05 - Land and Sea Addition Subdivision Time Extension Request: Chair Woodruff opened the public hearing, and called for abstentions, bias, conflicts of interest, or ex parte contact. None were announced.
 City Planner Lewis reviewed the staff report, noting that the subdivision had been approved in 2005. 35 lots in Phase 1 have been built. The applicant was asking that the tentative approval for Phases 2 and 3 be extended. There were no changes proposed to the design, but the applicant was asking for consideration to develop Phase 3 prior to Phase 2, and to incorporate 8 undeveloped lots included in Phase 1 into Phase 3. Two letters of testimony had been included in the staff report.
 Proponents Presentation: None.
 Opponents Presentation: None.
 Chair Woodruff closed the public hearing and opened the Commission meeting for deliberations. Commissioner Barham noted that the City's Code did not appear to provide for additional time extensions, and Mr. Lewis explained that this was the reason the public hearing was being held to consider the request, and future modifications of the Code may refine the process for such issues. Commissioner Peterson moved to grant the time extensions with the proposed conditions of approval. Commissioner Barham seconded, and the motion carried unanimously. Consensus of the Commission was to have Mr. Lewis prepare the findings and authorize the Chair to sign them.
6. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
 A. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis noted that this planning report included activities from the end of June through the beginning of October. No action was required.
 B. Waldport Development Code Amendments: Mr. Lewis explained that the City Council had authorized the Planning Commission to review proposed Code amendments and make a recommendation to the Council. This process will probably take several months.
 C. Other Issues: None.
7. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 4:45 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 4th day of December, 2017.
SIGNED by the Chair this 4th day of December, 2017.
Ray Woodruff, Chair


City of Waldport P.O. Box 1120 Waldport, OR 97394
Phone (541)264-7417   Fax (541)264-7418
The City of Waldport is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer
 

©2015 City of Waldport                                                     WebSite Design by Alsea Bay Computer Consulting