A.        ROLL CALL:  Chairperson Peter Howison opened the meeting at 7:05 p.m.

            Present:  Mark and Cynthia Chandler, Darlene and Marv Beckman, Denise Ruttan of the Siuslaw News, Alice Helmuth, Susie Navetta, Karen Peck, Rick Cox, Clare Brien, Arlan Smith, Fuzzy Gates, Greg Barnes, George Burke, Dave Gosselin, Rich Koehler, Judy Bedsole, Ralph Farnsworth, William and T. Sathe, Eugene McKee, Charlene Bay, Johan Hogervorst, Jim Rassman, Naomi and Gerry Wasserburg, John Stead, Pat Stutzman, and David Bellemore.

B.         INTRODUCTION:  THE CCI PROCESS

            Howison talked about the CCI process.

C.        AGENDA ADDITIONS

            Additional topics added: Travel Trailer, RV Parks and Fence; Fire Hydrants; Protection of Riparian Area; Prohibited Activities in Wetland; Protection of Riparian Corridors; and Application Requirements Including Specific Deletions.

D.        MOTIONS

             1.         Design and Development Standards  (see next page)

ACTION:       Karen Peck made a motion to accept the discussed Design and Development Standards (see above).  Susie Navetta seconded the motion.  There were 19 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

                        There was a discussion concerning slopes greater than 20%.  It was decided to change the percentages to greater than 12%.  There was a discussion about removing the reference to septic system requirements.  There were 16 in favor of leaving the requirement in and there were 6 opposed.  The reference to the septic system was left within the document.

            2.         PUD Lot Size

ACTION:       Ralph Farnsworth made a motion to accept the recommendation from Holly Martin’s letter that states:  “155.2.1.210.5 – insert at end of first sentence:  EXCEPT THAT NO BULDING LOT SHALL BE LESS THAN ONE ACRE IN SIZE (modified from Martin’s letter).   Gerry Wasserburg seconded the motion.  There were 20 ayes, 0 nays.   Motion carried.

            3.         Sensitive Areas

ACTION:       Mark Chandler made a motion to accept the recommendation from Holly Martin’s letter that states: “Subdivision:  Add the following language to 155.4.3.130 (B)(2) as new subsection (k);  THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT FALLS WITH THE SENSITIVE AREA OF THE WATERSHED SERVING DUNES CITY, AS DEFINED IN THE DUNES CITY DRINKING WATER SOURCE ASSESSMENT (LAND COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2002), INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THAT AREA WITHIN 1000 FEET OF THE SHORES OF LAKES WOAHINK OR SILTCOOS, INCLUDING MAJOR INLETS AND OUTLETS.  PUDs: add the same language as a new subsection g to 155.4.5.105(A)(3).   Dave Bellemore seconded the motion.  There were 20 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

            4.         Travel Trailer and Recreation Vehicle Parks

ACTION:       Karen Peck made a motion for the following:

                        155.4.9.5 Travel Trailer and Recreation Vehicle Parks

                        Travel Trailer and Recreational Vehicle Parks shall not be permitted within the Urban Growth Boundary of Dunes City.  Alice Helmuth seconded the motion.  There were 17 ayes, 2 nays.  Motion carried.

            5.         Fences and Walls

ACTION:       Karen Peck made a motion for the following:

1.         The original ordinance regarding the front yard fence height most clearly reflects the direction of the Comprehensive Plan.  Dunes City Ordinances should maintain the 3 ½ foot height for fences in the front yard.  A corner lot is to be considered to have two front yards and it fronts two streets.

2.         The original separate designation for “Fences and Walls” is more clear and easier to find than in the new proposed ordinances.  The separation of Residential and Commercial can be maintained in the new ordinance but a separate designation in each of those categories labeled “Fences and Walls” should be specified and enumerated.

3.         B.4. of the new Fence ordinance is good, making it clear that fences are not permitted in the shoreline area.  A clear definition of what this means may prevent future conflict.  B.4. should read as follows:

B. 4. Fences are not permitted in the shoreline area that is within 50’ of the high water line as measured horizontally. 

                        Alice Helmuth seconded the motion.   There were 19 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

            6.         Fire Hydrants

ACTION:       Susie Navetta made a motion that the Dunes City ’s Draft Ordinance include Fire Hydrants and Indoor Sprinkler Systems in subdivisions and PUD sections in accordance with the Oregon Revised Statues by adding:

                        155.3.4.6 Fire Hydrants and Indoor Sprinkler Systems

                        The builder is to install suitable fire hydrants meeting City specifications to serve fire flow requirements of the subdivision.  Until such time as a municipal water system is in use, the developer shall install fire sprinklers in each new residential dwelling, subdivision or PUD.  Gerry Wasserberg seconded the motion.  There were 13 ayes, 10 nays.  Motion carried.

7.         Protection of Riparian Corridors and Wetland Prohibited Activities

ACTION:       Mark Chandler made a motion of the following:

            For 155.2.5.6.500 Protection of Riparian Corridors: 

                        Delete C. 1

                        Change C.2 to C.1 and delete “drainage facilities.”

                        Change C.3 to C.2 and after “uses” include “one access path not to                               exceed 6 feet in width: and”

                        Change C.4 to C.3

                        Under G. change “Chapter 155” to “Chapter 154”

                        Add section 155.2.6.500.1

            Prohibited Activities within Riparian Corridors

            The following activities are prohibited within a riparian corridor, except as may be allowed in 155.2.5.6.500 C.

1)         Placement of structures or impervious surfaces, including fences, decks, etc.

2)         Excavation, grading, fill, stream alteration or diversion, or removal of native vegetation, except for perimeter mowing for fire protection purposes.

3)         Expansion of pre-existing non-native ornamental vegetation such as lawn.

4)         Dumping, piling, or disposal of refuse, yard debris, or other material.

5)         Application of chemicals such as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers unless applied in accordance with state and federal regulations.

and

                        155.2.5.500.3  Prohibited Activities within Wetland Protection Areas

                                    Delete “ any use…”

                                    add the following:

                        The following activities are prohibited within significant wetlands except as may be permitted in Section 155.2.5.500.2:

1)         Placement of structures or impervious surfaces, including septic drainfields, fences, decks, etc.

2)         Excavation, grading, fill, or removal of vegetation, except for perimeter mowing for fire protection purposes.  Non-native vegetation may be replaced with native plants.

3)         Expansion of existing non-native landscaping, such as lawn, in existence prior to the adoption of this chapter.

4)         Dumping, piling, or disposal of refuse, yard debris, or other material.

5)         Application of chemicals such as herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers unless applied in accordance with state and federal regulations.

6)         Any use not specifically in 155.2.5.500.2.

            Cynthia Chandler seconded the motion.  There were 21 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

8.         Protection During Construction

ACTION:       Cynthia Chandler made a motion as follows:

                        For 155.2.5.500 Protection of Wetland Areas

                        Add:

                        F.         Protection During Construction

                                    The applicant shall be required to submit and pay for a resource protection plan prior to commencement of ground-disturbing activities that may affect wetlands or riparian corridors.  The plan shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and must contain methods ensuring that the resources is not disturbed during construction, which includes both physical barriers such as fencing and methods to ensure that no runoff or other surface impacts affect the resources.  The approved plan shall be implemented and maintained until such time as the Planning Commission deems it is no longer necessary.  Failure to implement and/or maintain the approved plan will result in an immediate stop work order and possible abatement.

                        Naomi Wasserburg seconded the motion.  There were 19 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

                        Darlene Beckman approached the CCI with a recommendation from the City Attorney, Gary Darnielle, to remove “variance criteria” from 155.2.3.400 Conditional Uses.  Howison said that he would see that the information got to the correct body.

                        Cynthia Chandler said that there were numerous problems with the draft land use revision, one being that the Planning Commission and City Council may approve flag lots at their discretion.  Chandler said the City Council should not have such power.  Chandler also said that there needs to be some of the requirements from the old Code transferred into the new Code.  Chandler cited 155.4.6 that calls for standard criteria, but the criterion is not defined.  Chandler said she had many more examples.  Gerry Wasserburg suggested that the chair appoint a subcommittee to address Chandler ’s concerns.  There was no action taken.

9.         Limited Land Use Decision

ACTION:       John Stead made a motion as presented above.  Mark Chandler seconded the motion.  There were 19 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

            10.       Vision Clearance

ACTION:       John Stead made a motion as presented above.  Dave Bellemore seconded the motion.  There were 17 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

            11.       Surface Water Management

ACTION:       John Stead made a motion as presented above.  Cynthia Chandler seconded the motion.  There were 21 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

12.       Motion by John Stead

ACTION:       John Stead made a motion as follows:

                        Based on the increasing number of complexities and questionable areas of the 155 Draft Ordinance; and in view of the fact that there are no pressing matters forcing approval of the document before it is fully received in an adequate and comprehensive manner;  it is moved that the Council be advised and requested that the CCI process on the Draft Ordinance be suspended, including all scheduled public hearings, until the Council acts on the proposed temporary moratorium; and that once the temporary moratorium passes, the CCI review process be included in grant review considerations and applications.  If the moratorium fails, the City is to provide sufficient funding and staffing expertise and other assistance required by the CCI, after which the process of public hearings is to continue.

                        Susie Navetta seconded the motion.  There were 21 ayes, 0 nays.  Motion carried.

Meeting adjourned at 9:35 PM .

Christina Lewis, Recording Secretary