Untitled Document

YAMHILL PLANNING
COMMISSION MINUTES

December 7, 2005

CAC WORKSHOP

CALL TO ORDER:

The CAC workshop of the Yamhill Planning Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Larkin.

AGENDA ITEM 2.0-
Roll Call:

Present: Chair Larkin, Commissioner Losli and Commissioner Vacha.

Citizens in attendance: Marilyn Kosel and Larry Meier.

AGENDA ITEM 4.0-
Discussion with Community Members Regarding the Commercial District:

Chair Larkin advised the group that these meetings starting in June and that he was hoping for some type of decision tonight. Noting that there are not that many citizens in attendance, it would probably be better to wait for the next meeting.

Rocky Losli asked for the group to come up with a draft plan; a drawing diagramming the intended result and showing how it came to the conclusion, creating a detailed methodology.

Marilyn Kosel agrees that the group need to create a clear concept, prior to making any recommendation to Council.

There was discussion regarding the width of the sidewalks required in the commercial area and if an exception could be made from 5’ to 8’. There was discussion that if the requirements were reduced to 5’ that this would be more do-able. It would also not take away as many parking spaces as and 8’ sidewalk and would allow for large trucks to make the turns at the intersections and still allow for diagonal parking.

There was discussion regarding placing parking restrictions along the street parking in the downtown area; 2 hour parking. There was discussion regarding business owners and customers parking in front of a business that they are not visiting.

Rocky Losli stated that he would like to see Ordinance enforcement regarding sidewalks; parking on sidewalks, obstructing sidewalks. He has been told by City Hall that ordinance enforcement is done on a complaint basis only, as the City does not have the funds for an Ordinance enforcement officer.

There was discussion that the Police Department could do more public relations with the citizens regarding code enforcement. If a car is observed parking over/on a sidewalk, the Police Department should knock on the door of the homeowner and advise them that they need to park properly.

There was discussion regarding the obstruction of sidewalks with merchandise and that there have been complaints on that. The complaints are not at any one particular business, just that the sidewalks should be free and clear for pedestrians.

There was discussion that this group look into making a recommendation to Council regarding amendments to the sidewalk ordinance, allowing for merchandise on sidewalks.

Marilyn Kosel has done some grant research and has made a list of possible areas to look to for funding. Some of the grants provide money for the planning stage as well as the actual project.

There was discussion regarding losing local control if grant funds come with strings. There needs to be research to make sure that local control is still there and that there are not “strings” attached to the funds.

Marilyn Kosel will create a sub-committee and try to get that group to meet a couple times before the next CAC meeting. They will bring back to the CAC some definition of the grants available, what qualifies for the grants and what the grants pay for.

The CAC set the next meeting date for January 4, 2006, 6:00pm.

The CAC meeting ended at 6:52pm.

PUBLIC HEARING

AGENDA ITEM 4.0-
Roll Call:

Present: Chair Larkin, Commissioner Losli, Commissioner Morris and Commissioner Vacha.

Absent: Commissioner Prendergast

CALL TO ORDER:

The Public Hearing Meeting of the Yamhill Planning Commission was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Chair Larkin.

AGENDA ITEM 5.A-
Mitchell Sub Division SD 05-005 Application:

Step 4: Chair Larkin announced that this Public Hearing is a continuation from the October 5, 2005 Public Hearing. At that Public Hearing the Staff reported that the application was still incomplete. The Planning Commission continued the Public Hearing to November 2, 2005, 7:00pm. Leaving the record open until September 23, 2005, 5:00pm, allowing for the applicant to provide a complete application. The November 2, 2005 Planning Commission was canceled and rescheduled to December 7, 2005.

City Planner Wendolowski presented the Staff Report Addendum and read it into the record.

Step 5: Chuck Mitchell, 410 E 3rd Street, addressed the Planning Commission and asked that the Planning Commission accept his proposal with the 33’ easement access. He stated that 1st Street is unnecessary. He stated that there is no property to develop beyond the UGB as there are wetland issues, low lands, a creek and these issues are the same on the other side of the creek. He stated that there is no State agency that would allow development in these areas. In addition to these issues, there is no way that sewer service would be able to be extended to property beyond the UGB, due to where the current sewer line is.

Craig Harris, engineer for applicant, 17417 SW Roosevelt Drive Sherwood, Or, engineer of applicant, stated that the majority of the current farm is in the flood zone

Frank Eckrode, 1055 E 1st Street, owner of the property, stated that even without counting the 1996 flood, there is water running up over the creek. That area fills up with water very quickly. There is one corner in the area that stays wet even in August.

There were no other proponents that spoke.

Step 6: There were no opponents that spoke.

Step 7: Commissioner Losli asked what the estimated Flood Line on the applicants drawing was and how accurate it was.

Craig Harris responded that the line was taken from a FEMA map and he could not say how accurate it was, as he did not make the drawing the Planning Commission was looking at.

Chuck Mitchell responded that he created the drawing and used an estimate that is an interpretation based on relative data from FEMA maps.

There was further discussion between Craig Harris, Chuck Mitchell and Commissioner Losli regarding the maps, the actual flood areas and the accuracy of the flood lines indicated on the drawings presented to the Planning Commission. The discussion ended with the conclusion that the flood lines indicated on the drawings is an estimate.

Frank Eckrode stated that he had never seen the water make it up to the City limits in his 46 years.

Commission Vacha stated that homes in the Rowland Creek subdivision are being built in a flood zone area, so how does one figure that there can never be development with this particular piece of property.

Chuck Mitchell responded that the Rowland Creek development was able to slope the area, this land does not have the area to tae the volume out.

Chair Larkin inquired if sidewalks would be required along Main Street. City Recorder Wodarczak responded that sidewalks would be a requirement at the time a building permit was applied for. Any sidewalks along Main Street would have to be approved by ODOT as well. If ODOT did not approve the placement of sidewalks, a non-remonstrance would be signed and filed against the property.

Chair Larkin inquired if the City needed to review the quit-claim document for tax lot 9402. City Planner Wendolowski responded that it should be filed with the plat when it is recorded. It will come back before the Planning Commission for final approval once all improvements have been completed.

There was discussion of whether a turn-around would be required by the Fire Department. The length of the proposed street is 137’ and does not require a turn-around.

Chair Larkin addressed the applicant and engineer and asked for them to provide a valid reason on why 1st Street should not be continued as the City’s Ordinances are clear and require existing streets to be extended.

Craig Harris stated that he does not feel 1st Street needs to be extended as it will never be used for future development to the East. With the City requiring it to be extended, it will only create additional expense to the City in the future with the maintenance and other issues and with it dead-ending it will only collect trash.

Step 8: There were no representatives from any Public Agency and no written communications.

Step 9: There were no letters received.

Step 10: Chair Larkin addressed the applicant and engineer and asked for them to provide a valid reason on why 1st Street should not be continued as the City’s Ordinances are clear and require existing streets to be extended.

Chair Larkin stated that the need to continue a street is looked at through a Planning process for the future. There were many planning issues in the past that did not look to the future. The City never expected to expand to the south and therefore W 1st, 2nd and 3rd Streets were allowed to be terminated and now that the City has expanded to the West, these streets are not available for access.

Craig Harris stated that if 1st Street is extended then lot 5 becomes a corner lot and the width increases to 70’ and they would need to lay out the subdivision differently. City Planner Wendolowski responded that all lots, no matter corner or interior, must be 60’ wide; there is no requirement that a corner lot be wider than an interior lot.

Step 11: City Planner Wendolowski read his recommendation to approve the subdivision and adopt the findings, including the amendment to add ODOT notations regarding W Main Street.

Step 12: Chair Larkin closed the Public Hearing at 8:13pm.

Step 13: Chair Larkin called for deliberation with findings and facts from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Morris stated that he agreed with the Staff Report as no one truly knows what will happen with the land outside the UGB in the future. Commissioner Losli concurred with Commissioner Morris. Commission Vacha agrees with Staff Report and recommendation.

Chair Larkin stated that he has not heard any testimony that clearly gave reason for not extending 1st Street and therefore he too agrees with the Staff recommendation to extend W 1st Street.

Motion by Losli to APPROVE APPLICATION SDV 05-005 AND ADOPT THE FINDINGS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT ALONG WITH THE AMENDMENT OF ODOT REQUIREMENTS ALONG W MAIN STREET.

Roll Call: Ayes: Larkin, Losli, Morris and Vacha
Nays: None

Motion carried.
Commissioner Morris was excused from the meeting as he had work obligations.

The Planning Commission called for a 5 minute break at 8:16pm.

The Planning Commission re-convened at 8:21pm

REGULAR MEETING

AGENDA ITEM 8.A-
Final Plat for Paolo Addition:

A copy of the final plat for the Paolo Addition and Murray Addition were presented to the Planning Commission.

Staff noted that the County required to plats with two names as the property was not adjoining, thus the Paolo Addition (20 lots) and the Murray Addition (5 lots).

City Staff has concerns with the “spike strip” of land and the future expense to land owners to combine the new tax lot with an existing tax lot. City Planner Wendolowski stated that the property owners will not incur any cost, they simply go to the County and request the tax lots be merged into one. There is no need to come before the City, it can all be done at the County.

Motion by Losli to APPROVE SUBDIVISION SDV 04-003, MURRAY AND PAOLO ADDITIONS AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT.

Roll Call: Ayes: Larkin, Losli, Morris and Vacha
Nays: None

Motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING

AGENDA ITEM 5.B-
Municipal Code Amendments – MCC 05-003:

Step1: Chair Larkin opened the Public Hearing at 8:45 p.m. and announced the purpose of the hearing. Chair Larkin stated that anyone with interest in tonight’s agenda items may offer relevant oral or written testimony and should only speak when identified for that purpose. All testimony and evidence received during the Public Hearing must be directed towards the issue of the application. Anyone wanting to speak must address the Chairperson and to please state their name and address for the record. Any question that is not directed to the Chairperson will not be part of the record.

Chair Larkin advised all present that this hearing is for amendments to the Yamhill Municipal Code and a recommendation will be sent to Yamhill City Council. There will be no final decision this evening by the Planning Commission, only a recommendation to Council.

Chair Larkin continued to explain the process of the Public Hearing by reading the Public Hearing Procedures.

Step 2: Chair Larkin asked the audience if there were any objections to the notices that were sent in this case.

There were no objections to the notices.

Chair Larkin asked all those in attendance if there were any objections to the jurisdiction.

There were no objections to jurisdiction.

Step 3: There was no declaration of bias or conflict of interest by any Planning Commissioner member.

Step 4: City Planner Wendolowski addressed the Commission. He advised the Planning Commission that their duty this evening is to make a recommendation to City Council.

City Planner Wendolowski presented and read his Staff Report.

Step 5: There were no proponents that spoke.

Step 6: There were no opponents.

Step 7: There was discussion regarding the meaning/intent of 10.16.020 (F), the taking of boarders or leasing of rooms. This is basically some old time language that has just stayed in the code. It does not change the criteria for apartments or multifamily dwellings.

Step 8: There were no representatives from any Public Agencies and no written communications.

Step 9: There were no letters presented.

Step 10: There was no rebuttal.

Step 11: City Planner Wendolowski recommends that the Planning Commission approve the application and adopt findings contained in the Staff Report.

Step 12: Chair Larkin closed the Public Hearing for Municipal Code Amendments at 8:50 p.m.

Step 13: Motion by Vacha to RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE AMENDMENTS, ADOPTING THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

Roll Call: Ayes: Larkin, Losli and Vacha
Nays: None

Motion carried.

REGULAR MEETING

AGENDA ITEM 7.A-
Public Comment:

There was no public comment.

AGENDA ITEM 8.B-
Final Plat Approval for Van Luenen Partition:

Motion by Vacha to APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE VAN LUENEN PARTITION AND AUTHORIZE THE CHAIR TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT.

Roll Call: Ayes: Larkin, Losli and Vacha
Nays: None

Motion carried.

AGENDA ITEM 9.-
Other Business:

There were no other business items.

AGENDA ITEM 10.0-
Approval of Planning Commission Minutes – October 5, 2005:

Chair Larkin approved the minutes with corrections to page 1 of 7.

AGENDA ITEM 10.0-
Announcements:

There were no announcements.

AGENDA ITEM 11.0-
Adjournment:

Chair Larkin adjourned the Planning Commission at 9:40 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted:

Sandi Wodarczak
City Recorder/Treasurer