|
Dunes City Planning Commission M I N U T E S |
RTF file | |
|
Regular Meeting – December 28, 2006 - 7:00 P.M. |
||
|
City Hall - 82877
Spruce St. I.
CALL TO ORDER
Chair George Burke called the meeting to order at
ROLL CALL Present: Chair George Burke; Commissioners, Dick Anderson, Susie Navetta, Ron Shearer, David Bellemore; Planning Secretary, Teri Tinker; Office Assistant; Sue Scott; City Attorney, Gary Darnielle; and numerous citizens in the audience. II.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES ACTION:
George Burke asked for the approval of the Minutes. Susie Navetta made the motion to approved the minutes with the following corrections: second page, 2nd paragraph change to "Given 15 minutes for review" and page 3, under Cynthia Chandler, first paragraph change the word plant to plan. Ron Shearer seconded the motion. There were 5 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. III. ANNOUNCEMENTS New Planning Commission will not be sworn in due to an error in the public notification. Gary Darnielle said the December City Council meeting was cancelled due to weather related conditions. Council was to take care of bills and appoint Planning Commission to ensure that a Planning Commission was in place. Darnielle said that state law requires 24 hour notice, including the media, and that the Councilors had not been given the 24 hours notice required under the public meeting law when they voted by phone on Thursday. Darnielle informed council president, Judy Martin, who made the decision to schedule a special
meeting for of the bills of session and appoint Planning Commissioners. Then on
will be sworn in. IV. CORRESPONDENCE - None V.
NEW BUSINESS
1. Concept Assistance -
Adrian Vanderhave To enlarge the garage that is within 5 feet of the property line.
Would like to do on the remodel of the house and garage. Bellemore asked about the garage floor settling and they should Find out why before they pour new floor. Burke said they need to Apply for a variance and have it approved by the City Council. There was mention that Navetta and Bellemore had gone to the Property and asked questions regarding measuring from house to Bank. Tinker commented that when you rebuild garage move it 10' from property line. Vanderhave wants to keep north wall of existing garage. Burke said we can't advise you on what you need to do. Must apply for a variance and show reason why you need variance. Discussion regarding septic and notification of neighbors. VI. OLD
BUSINESS -
None VII.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. PUD - Little Woahink
PUD Phase III located at the end of Little
Tinker passed out information regarding Little Woahink that was
received on Burke read the hearing procedure notifying the public of their rights. Burke asked the Planning Commission to declare any conflicts of interests. There were none. Burke asked the Commission if there were any ex parte contacts. There were none. George Burke opened the
public hearing at Tinker presented the staff report and the findings of fact recommending approval to go to City Council with conditions. Navette raised questions regarding the sprinklers in the completed phases. Tinker said, that the city could not require sprinklers. There was a question and discussion regarding carrying capacity of land and vegetation. Burke stated these were questions for EGR not the staff and wants to know if there are any other questions for the staff. Navetta asked about the word Architect on page 15, paragraph 8 in the finds of fact, Burke clarified that the PUD requires that the applicant have an Architect as part of the design team. Burke asked again if there were any other questions regarding the staff report. Burke asked applicant(s) to summarize the application. Mike
Farthing, Attorney, Farthing
provided a brief overview of the changes that were made including
reducing the number of lots and taking the lake out of the equation,
at least for now. Farthing
noted, for the record, that if
and when the lake issue is settled that there's a process where we can
incorporate it back into the PUD. Farthing
said he supports the staff
report and draft findings and would like Mr. Hughes to comment on
one of the conditions and make a slight suggestion. Shane
Hughes, EGR and Associates, 2535B OR Hughes
discussed page 15, condition 6 of the draft finding,
specifically in regards to on-site septic systems, which states they
shall utilize the technology recommended by EGR & Associates and
application materials in the letter dated said
he had no objection to that language, but suggested that ERR
and authority
over final approval of septic systems and is subject to
their review and approval. We
would be happy to incorporate as many
of the Best Management practices in the septic system design as conflict
with their rules, with respect to shallow drainfields systems, EG&R
will be happy to place them as shallow as possible, but in some
circumstances certain
depth. Hughes asks that County’s
requirement and their authority. Farthing referenced a letter by Mark Chernaik (Exhibit A) indicating he was unclear on the status of the letter and that it didn't reference their particular application. Farthing said the letter was only addressed to Ms. Tinker and not addressed to the Planning Commission. Farthing Asked if it was new information that he would be addressing or not.
Burke said the Planning Commission was unclear of the whole situation of this letter/report also and he suggested that since the Planning Commission had just received the letter they would not consider it that night, but the City Council would consider the letter at the second public hearing. There was a discussion regarding who Mark Chernaik was and his involvement with new ordinances. Farthing asked if he should request a postponement after reviewing the policies referenced in the letter and had time to discuss it with Mr. Hughes so that they could address it in writing. Farthing asked, "How "how important is it to address all of this." Burke said the letter was unfair to the applicant and unfair to the Planning Commission. The staff will accept documents up until Wednesday before the Planning Commission meeting. Burke said the applicant is going to have to deal with it sometime, but the Planning Commission is not going to spend the time tonight. Navetta commented that Mark Chernaik is a lawyer dealing with environmental issues. Bellemore said despite Burke's statement that the Planning Commission does not entertain these last minute documents, he would
like to point out that at the old business, the final Plat of Sunset Cove PUD, which we received at the meeting, was considered that night. Burke said it was a completely different situation. There was a reference to Chernaik's letter being 3 pages and Sunset Cove PUD was 100 pages. Burke said Sunset Cove was a review of a final document that goes onto City Council for approval. There was no decision to make other then reviewing the final documents. Bellemore said, so we're to review the final document when we receive them at the meeting. Burke said, "That’s the way we’ve done it in the past and that’s the way we will continue to do it. Let’s move on." Farthing commented on the PUD, Mr. Chernaik’s letter and zero Tolerance. There was a discussion on policy and code, subdividing the property and going with the PUD to preserve the things that everyone wants to preserve. There was a discussion on carrying capacity, the Comprehensive plan and the impact on the lake, including how they have reduced the impact by reducing the number of lots and keeping the perimeter of the subdivision in its natural state. Farthing discussed the case of Woahink ridge and how LUBA discussed policy in regards to land use applications and the different kinds of policies. Farthing said that if the applicant had just subdivided the property the policies would not have been an issue; the policies are not part of the subdivision code. Farthing said that by putting development away from the lake and using the advanced systems and employing Best Management Practices, they have done everything possible to significantly decrease the impacts of the PUD on the lake.
Anderson, Planning Commissioner, asked if Farthing agrees with all of the conditions. Farthing said yes, except for the one change Hughes mentioned before regarding the Lane County Sanitarian approving the septic systems. Peter
Mohr, EGR and Associates, 2535B OR Mohr said with respect to the withdrawal of the lake bed from the open space consideration and calculations, for the record, on behalf of the applicant, that due to the down sizing/reduction of the number of lots, that is why the lake bed was pulled out of consideration, because the space was no longer needed for purposes of percentage calculation, it was not withdrawn for any other reason relative to issues concerning title of the water or anything of that nature. Mohr said he wanted to clarify, for the record that it was in no way an admission regarding water rights and that MJK still owned all the water rights to Little Woahink and could do as he wishes. Hughes said he would also like to make some points, for the record, regarding how the reduction in the number of lots was an attempt to be responsive to the Planning Commission’s concerns and not due to sanitation or water quality. Farthing said he did submit a waiver for the statutory deadline in
which
Burke
ask if anyone have any questions regarding the proposal and the information presented. There
was no response. Burke asked if anyone wanted to testify in support of the Little Woahink
PUD application. There were
none. Burke asked if there were any members of the audience who wanted to
testify in opposition of the application.
Christine May, 5445 Little May said she wanted to read a letter into the record, but wanted to comment on the Chernaik letter beforehand. May said it was the first time she had a chance to see it, and read a portion of a paragraph from page number 2 (Exhibit A). May read her letter (Exhibit C ). May commented that she didn’t have a chance to read the new response from the applicant, but is sure her quotes still apply and noted that she did not correct her letter to reflect the change of the PUD from 27 to 23 lots.
Greg
Barnes,
Barnes said May’s
letter addressed a lot of his own
concerns. Barnes said
some things doesn’t add up and is
in
disagreement with Dunes City Comprehensive Plan.
Barnes commented on the reduction in lot size from 1/3 acre
to ½ acre and questioned what was wrong with the original acre
and
how the one acre keeps with the appearance of
Barnes asked if EGR engineered the
Hughes said to his understanding it was a
Barnes said he talked to the County and they indicated that EGR
was part of the design team. Barnes
went on the say that the road is
too steep/unstable, creating a problem with emergency equipment
having access, slides, and the salmon in Little Woahink are not at
the
level they should be implying something has changed.
Barnes said the
lake water is
brown and the fish aren't coming to the surface. John
Stead, Stead said the storm water management plan provides no guarantee and there is nothing in the CC&R's regarding sprinklers being installed. Stead said "systems are going to fail. What are they going to do if there's a fire? Who's going to take responsible when the Fire Marshall can't get in to do his job because a tree is down, an RV is parked in the way, an emergency vehicle is dealing with someone who has had a heart attack due to the fire down the street." There is only one access; we have a very long dead end street. Stead said the CC&R's state that the permitted use for water is both domestic and irrigation. Water use is for domestic use only. Stead said the
city must consider the liability potential;
domestic use authorization does not include the use of water for fire protection purposes. Jerry
Wasserburg, Wasserburg asked where are there any means to measure/monitor the septic system and their drainages and what monitoring systems will be established? Wasserburg said he would like to emphasize the fact that the traffic report is grossly inadequate. Traffic that must be considered is the traffic that will exists both in Woahink Ridge and Little Woahink PUD. Wasserburg discussed the narrow section of Canary Road which is known to be in almost a state of complete failure and has been documented. Wasserburg also discussed the slumping of the road from one development into the other development and it is not addressed. Burke asked if anyone else had anything to say in opposition to this application.
Burke asked if the Applicant would like rebut or submit a final argument. Farthing said in reviewing testimony that was just presented, it's a little difficult to respond. There was a discussion regarding quotes from the old staff report. Farthing said a lot of information that was presented was just opinions; there was no supporting documentation. A lot of the information presented did not apply to the subdivision. Farthing said he believed logging was a contributing factor to the silt in the lake. DEQ had no problem with what was going on. Farthing said they are following Dunes City Comprehensive Plan and referenced city code and established policies. Farthings said "I do not see anything documented or in the record that supports what we have here
presented." Farthings
discussed review on this PUD and said, "This is a low density residential area in Development. Then we have regulations that say how that development shall occur. It gives the owner an option to do a PUD to accomplish some of those requirements." Farthing discussed how they could have gone with a conventional subdivision, but then the Comprehensive Plan, which everyone was discussing wouldn't apply. Farthing discussed the traffic study and said it speaks for itself. Hughes said he wanted to emphasize that whenever they do a development in any jurisdiction they start with that city's guidelines and rules, as well as State and Federal regulations that are required. Hughes said, "We start with the rule books. Those are the minimum standards. It's like a building code, it's minimum standards. It doesn't say it's the best you can do. If you meet those building code standards; you've met the standards and you're going to get your plan approved." Hughes said they have designed this plan to be more protective then the rule book requires. Hughes discussed secondary access and stated for the record that they had checked to see if it was possible, but they were up against urban growth boundaries. It wouldn't even be possible if the urban growth boundary were moved. Mohr commented that a lot of people have made comments & conclusions have been drawn, but there have been no supporting information for the basis of these conclusions. Mohr discussed the water right for the lake and that it was a recreational water right. The applicant has a vested interest in keeping water quality high. There was a discussion about the sediment in the lake, land under laying the lake, pump failures, water rights, and how information was needed in the record which actually says what was going on, what was the basis, what the concerns are, and question the validity of these statements that are being made. In response to Stead's comment that fire protection or irrigation, Darnielle asked for clarification from Mohr, a water rights expert. Mohr said a domestic use water right is simply that; it's for domestic purposes and unless a water right is amended to accommodate other uses that is it's limitation. Mohr said how the state would interpret
that for the
Stage and without a municipal water system, water rights to address all their needs and this comes straight from Water Resources. Mohr discussed Woahink lake water rights and Little Woahink and limited right access. There was additional discussion regarding water rights. Wasserburg said he wanted to make a statement for clarification
regarding the statements he had made are provided to the Council and that public testimony is fully documented since last October. Farthing said Stead had raised a point about CC&R and water use, but believed the preferred option was that the CC&R could be changed to limit irrigation. Mohr stated, "When it says domestic use, I would ask that we obtain clarification from Water Resources as to how they interpret that limitation, and under a domestic water right application irrigate up to ½ an acre." There was a discussion regarding conversations with Water Resources and rules.
Burke opened the meeting up for Planning Commission questions.
Navetta said she would like to address the small lots 1-11; (existing platted lots) that the applicant wants to bring into the PUD. Farthing said lots 1-11 are plated lots and they can be developed tomorrow. Farthing stated, "If we do nothing else with the properties and dropped the PUD, they could be developed tomorrow using the existing road that is there." Farthing said they were adding those lots to the PUD to serve those lots with the community water system for efficiency, so each of those lots would not have to drill wells; the lots are not being re- platted. There was a discussion regarding water would be obtained if the pre-platted lots were not brought into the PUD. ACTION:
Shearer made a motion to extend the meeting past Navetta seconded the motion. There were 5 ayes, 0 nays. Motion carried. There were discussions of water system line vs. individual lines, length of water line to length of their individual lines, water systems, community water systems and how they maintained the water systems, pump size, flow rates, and balance. Ensure owners having sprinklers installed are addressed in the CC&R's. There was more discussions regarding concern over water quality, pumps,
wells, and lines. There
was a discussion regarding inherit the community water system, how long CC&R's run and can that option be added to the C&R's. There was a discussion regarding the lots in Phase I and it's incorporation into the PUD and the effect the lots would have on the overall density of the PUD, storm water and piping the storm water. Best Management practices, gravel ditches, pollution problems, bio-soils, hydro seeding, and well drilling was discussed as well as the applicants' concern for water quality and the lake. Tinker answered one of the previous questions regarding if the 11 lots were figured into the density, by saying they have the 23 lots plus the 11, totaling 34 lots and since they have 34 acres, they meet the requirements. Darnielle said he'd like to clarify that DEQ requires a monitoring of the water system over time to make sure the system is working as proposed. Hughes said an Managed Public Development is obligated to make sure a water management plan works. Burke commented on the private/public road issue on the cul-de-sacs and as far as he could remember, the Road Commission requested that all the roads be public. Farthing said the applicant's intent was to make public roads. Farthing
said he does not believe road is maintained by the users of the road. Burke agreed that there was no such mechanism. Farthing said there is a declaration of public road and maintenance agreement; the County required it for those particular subdivisions were a major component of the assessment is maintenance of the road.
Burke said the City didn't have any mechanism and he didn't think the City would want it. Burke said that the issue was that we don't want to find ourselves with private roads at the end of every public street. There can be a private road from usually a gated community entrance; a private road from the gate in, but not a public road, 100' for private road, then back to public road. Farthing said the applicant would agree. Tinker said that the July 17th minutes from the Road Commission says: Roads and cul de sacs shall be dedicated to the City. Burke asked if there were any more questions of the Planning Commission.
Bellemore said one of the issues was the common space around the edge and the trees and maintaining the forest. There was discussion regarding buyers/developers being allowed to remove trees to improve the marketing of the lot (from the original proposal). Bellemore said he's concerned with a possible problem trying to preserve vegetation, questioned the common area and if the HOA would control that area, and wondered if it would be possible to add some kind of legal method such as a conservation easement, to protect the forested areas. Farthing said the short answer was yes. Farthing recommended that the common area down by the lake would continue as is and then along the perimeter of the subdivision, have a set back. There was discussion regarding an existing road, establishing a set back for the perimeter or impose an easement.
Bellemore said he would like to treat the common area like the City treats the first 15' feet of the shoreline, which is basically untouchable, unless there is a danger tree, but to leave the area as natural as possible. Mohr said he'd like to clarify the difference between Little Woahink Water rights, which states for domestic use only and the people who are currently seeking the ability to divert water out of Little Woahink Lake which is under a limited exception, a human consumption, in-house use only, but is often referred to as domestic use only water right and is distinct
from Burke asked if anyone had any other questions. - There were none.
Burke closed the public hearing at There was a brief recess.
DELIBERATION:
Burke called the meeting back to order at
Bellemore brought up concerns regarding being elected to the City Council and if this posed a conflict. Darnielle discussed the options and future actions if he was to recuse himself.
Bellemore & Navetta recused themselves from deliberations. Darnielle said if the Planning Commission moves forward with the proposal he would like fire hydrants incorporated into the findings of facts.
There was a discussion regarding the restrictions and modifications.
ACTION: Shearer made a motion to approved the application for Woods at Little
Woahink PUD with 14 conditions and 2 modifications.
seconded the motion. There were 3 ayes (Anderson, Burke, Shearer) and 2 recused (Bellemore, Navetta). Motion carried.
VIII.
UNSCHEDULED BUSINESS Chain of Command Darnielle said there was clear inconsistency in part of the Comprehensive Plan and the sub-part of Comprehensive Plan needs to be fixed. |