Ana səhifə

City of Happy Valley Planning Commission Minutes

Yüklə 73.5 Kb.
ölçüsü73.5 Kb.

City of Happy Valley

Planning Commission Minutes

December 9, 2014

Page of

City of Happy Valley

Planning Commission Minutes

Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Commission Members Present: Staff Members Present:
Chair, Shanin Prusia

Vice Chair, Ted Hartzell Michael Walter, Economic & Community

Commissioner, Koblitz Development Director

Commissioner, Brown Justin Popilek, Senior Planner

Commissioner, Obritschkewitsch Steve Koper, Associate Planner

Cheryl Whitehead, Planning Assistant

Absent - Commissioner, Alex Ianos

Absent - Commissioner, Tom Summer

Others Present:
(See attached sign-in sheet)
Chair Prusia called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Roll call was taken.

  1. Minutes dated October 14, 2014

Vice Chair Hartzell made a motion to adopt the minutes dated October 14, 2014. Commissioner Brown seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, Koblitz, Brown & Obritschkewitsch. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
Verizon - Mike Connors

520 SW Yamhill St #235

Portland, OR 97204
AT&T – Meridee Pabst

93 S Jackson St #75604

Seattle, WA 98104

Mr. Conners gave the following presentation:

  • Discussed growth demand

  • Expanding to help with economic development and investing in Oregon networks

  • Small cell facilities are small antennas typically attached to existing structures

  • Discussed benefits and limitations

  • Discussed regulatory standards

  • Would like to see authorization for small cells in all zones

  • Discussed zone code changes

  • Suggest that small cells be a high priority

  • Suggested changes to the code as follows:

  • Upgrades to existing facilities

  • Co-locations and attachments

  • Adjustments

  • If poles are not available then light poles can be used

  • Small cells do not communicate directly with macro sites

  • Small cells target specific spots of around 500-700sf in the site allowance and infill where coverage is not available

  • They are designed to deal with capacity to help improve coverage

  • Why proposing a different regulatory – it is based on aesthetics and potential impacts

  • Are the cells regulated and do they have FCC emissions - yes they are regulated

  • They do make some noise but are significantly less noisy than a macro site

  • Battery backup determination is site by site whether it is a critical site or not but it is the decision of owner not the government

  • The number of small cells is limited and dictated by the hotspots available

  • Small cells are not a replacement for macro cells

  • The city does not currently regulate in the ROW but are proposing to

  • The City Attorney condensed the order down to 17 pages

  • Discussed the order and the rules

  • Discussed procedural issues that are concerning

  • The draft was reviewed but has not been published but will be in effect 90 days after it is published

  • Michael Walter asked if there are any strong feelings on the overall policy procedures

  • Commissioner Koblitz asked if the public should be engaged in the review process

  • It was stated that this was not necessary and that the Planning Commission and the City Council would be reviewing the amendments

  • Small cells are less invasive than a macro site but they will not eliminate them

Break at 8:17p.m.

Meeting began at 8:23p.m.
Chair Prusia read the hearing script in to the record. She asked the Commissioners for any Declarations of Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

None Declared.

Chair Prusia asked the audience if there are any challenges to any Commissioners Exparte Contact, Bias or Conflict of Interest.

None Challenged.

Public testimony opened at 8:27 p.m.

Michael Walter, Economic & Community Development Director, gave the following staff report:

  • Discussed the following regarding the amendments:

  • Public & Private streets

  • Residential standards and shared outdoor standards

  • Steep slopes overlay

  • Development standards

  • Fencing, walls and screening

  • Recreational areas and shared outdoor recreation areas

  • Local public private connectivity

  • Public and private local neighborhood streets

  • Dark skies friendly technology

  • Design review standard changes – discussed over three workshops

  • Appendix B

  • No additional correspondence were received

James Phillips

11800 SE Timber Valley Dr.

Clackamas, OR 97086

Mr. Phillips made the following comments:

  • Is looking at the code changes that effects property located by his house

  • There are a lot of steep slopes in the Happy Valley area

  • The purpose of the code is to prevent overdeveloped sloped lands

  • Each item is restricting development

  • #6 says it will exclude all land in the NROZ – this will eliminate a lot of land in Happy Valley

  • #2 states any development can do whatever they want without permission

  • #7 makes it so that steep slopes cannot be applied

  • #8 regards the calculations for density – makes it so that the land has to be so sloped so if you go below the calculations then it will eliminate the steep slope restrictions

  • Violating all sorts of items

  • The tree cutting and preservations are eliminated

  • Violates the Happy Valley comprehensive plan objectives

  • There are multiple violations of the city policies and state planning goals

  • Showed a picture of the 122nd & Sunnyside development

  • There were no steep slopes applied to this development

  • There is a large tarp that has been placed on the hillside and the only reason for this must be that the hillside is falling down the side of the hill

  • You can tell the areas are very steep and the walls are far more than 25%

  • Recommend that the PC look at this very carefully, the purpose of the steep slopes and state planning goals is to make sure that they comply before they are added to the code

Michael Walter made the following comments:

  • In regard to the subject site at 122nd & Sunnyside Mr. Koper provided all the reasons in the staff report as to why the steep slopes was not applicable

  • The main issue is that this is Mr. Phillips own interpretations of the code and law

  • Is it more important to take everything very literal and extreme to preserve slopes in small areas or to look at the larger picture of areas

  • Disagree with Mr. Phillips that it does away with the steep slopes

  • There are exceptions and exceptions have specific reasons to balance the equations and state laws are not in conflict with these changes

  • If fill was put in then it is not a natural state of the earth and is not considered a naturel steep slope

  • Commissioner Koblitz stated that it seems like a very small area that is affected – yes that is correct

  • Commissioner Brown stated that the word historical could be a problem – could tie the date to the SSDO adoption of 2009

  • Commissioner Koblitz stated that it may be better to use the terms unnatural and manmade

Public testimony closed at 8:55 p.m.

Commissioner and staff continued with the following comments:

  • Discussed several recommendations for changes

  • It was asked why residential care facilities were being exempted

  • Residential care facilities are treated across the board as a residential

  • Street trees and street lighting is addressed in a different section of the code

Commissioner Brown made a motion to recommend approval to City Council for LDC-13-14 Administrative Amendments as amended. Commissioner Hartzell seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, Koblitz, Brown & Obritschkewitsch. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
It was asked what the procedure is when there are trees that conflict with street lighting? A tree removal permit is required but if it is located within the planter strip then contact the Public Works Director.
Commissioner Brown made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Chair Prusia Hartzell seconded the motion.
Roll Call Vote: Ayes from Commissioners Prusia, Hartzell, Koblitz, Brown & Obritschkewitsch. The motion was passed with a unanimous vote.
The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 p.m.
Prepared and submitted by:
Cheryl Whitehead

Planning Assistant

These minutes were approved at the February 24, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting.

Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur © 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət