APRIL 17, 2001
1. ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the meeting to
order at 6:34 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Milligan, Hauser, Cutter and
Uhl answered the roll. Commissioner Meatzie was absent. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the
March 20, 2001 meeting. Commissioner Milligan moved to approve the
minutes as presented, Commissioner Cutter seconded. The motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
Commissioner Uhl asked about the progress being made by the
Downtown Revitalization Committee. Chair Balen and Commissioner Milligan gave a
brief review of the last meeting, indicating that they felt the survey and the
dialog at the meeting had been very profitable. Discussion ensued regarding the
possible disposition of the motel property.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
A. 1-V-01: Don & Diane Price: Chair Balen opened the public hearing on the variance request
for Don & Diane Price. He asked if there were any potential conflicts of
interest or bias. Commissioner Hauser noted that the contractor, Mr. Powell, was
her contractor as well. She felt that this would not influence her decisions in
this case. Commissioner Milligan noted that she had worked professionally with
Mr. Powell in the past, and also felt that this would not influence her
decision. No objections were raised in regards to their participation. Chair
Balen noted that the house in question was two doors down from a previously
granted variance of a similar nature.
Staff Report: Mr. Thompson reviewed his written staff
report. He noted that the lot size of 5410 square feet was substandard according
to the current development code, although it was still the largest lot on the
east side of Waziyata, with the exception of the one at the corner (which could
be divided into two lots). The lot was platted in 1973, which meant that it met
the first of the variance requirements. The peak to finished grade on each side
of the house, divided by four, determines the side yard setback, which is
one-third the height of the building. The ordinance allows for 45% lot coverage,
they were asking for 46% which included all decks, building a single-story
garage, and the existing house and garage. Commissioner Balen confirmed that the
new garage was only going to be as long as the existing house. The contractor
indicated that the plot plan included the 2' soffit for the second floor.
Mr. Thompson noted that the front yard setback was within
requirements, as it was determined by an average of the surrounding yards. The
rear yard setback was more than adequate.
Applicant's Presentation: Don Price addressed the
Commission in regard to the application. He indicated that they had bought the
property about two years ago and had been in the process of remodeling the house
since then. They would like to make it a permanent residence and were therefore
asking for the variance in order to make it more accommodating for full-time
residency. They had befriended the neighbors and had not heard any disparaging
remarks in regards to their proposal or the work done to-date. They were adding
a small amount of footage to the front of the house, and then concentrating on
the second story. Commissioner Cutter asked if the decks were elevated, Mr.
Price noted that they would be at the same level as the second story, supported
by posts. The front would be the main deck and the rear would be smaller.
The Commission reviewed the plans for the dwelling. In
response to a question from Chair Balen, Mr. Powell noted that they were not
making any changes to the existing foundation. Commissioner Uhl asked if the
front yard setback was to the pillars for the second deck, Mr. Powell confirmed.
Opponent's Presentation: None.
Chair Balen closed the hearing and opened the meeting for
discussion. Commissioner Hauser indicated that she remembered the previous
variance and how odd the area was to begin with. She felt that further
improvements would be welcomed. Chair Balen indicated that he had looked at the
area, and there were many narrow side yard setbacks. Commissioner Milligan moved
to approve the request for the variance, subject to the requirements cited in
the staff report. Commissioner Hauser seconded, and the motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
The Commission took a five-minute break. Chair Balen called
the meeting back to order at 7:25 p.m.
B. 1-C-01, City of Waldport: Chair Balen opened the Public Hearing on 1-C-01, City of
Waldport. No abstentions or bias were announced. The City of Waldport Parks
Committee was in attendance for the public hearing.
Staff Report: Mr. Thompson noted that the City could have
asked for either a zone change or a conditional use, but ultimately opted for a
conditional use. He indicated that the property had been included in the Parks
Master Plan which had been adopted by the City in 1998. He then reviewed the
written staff report, and noted that some sketches had been included with the
packet materials.
Chair Balen noted that he had an opportunity to meet with Mr.
Cerbone in regards to the proposed facility and had also reviewed some plans
on-line. He was surprised that they included using old swimming pools for the
purpose.
Mr. Cerbone reminded the Commission that they were not
submitting building permits yet, but they would be provided at a later date.
Chair Balen voiced concerns regarding potential liability, fencing, other plans
for playground facilities, lighting, traffic problems, supervision, attractive
nuisances, etc. Ms. Lehmann addressed the liability concern, noting that in the
State of Oregon, as long as the requirements are adhered to, the City would not
incur liability. She noted that there would be no lighting at night, as they
discourage night skating. Supervision would be done by the skateboarders, rather
than by City staff, which is how it was done at similar facilities throughout
the state. Commissioner Cutter asked if this had been tested in court. Ms.
Lehmann affirmed, stating that this is why Oregon has so many, and why
municipalities have them rather than private enterprises. Commissioner Cutter
asked about long-term effects regarding proximity to power facility? Mr. Cerbone
cited some studies in California which addressed the issue, although the power
lines were much more powerful. The facility would be 20-40 feet from the
substation, and the parking area could be moved to provide additional protection
if necessary. Further discussion ensued, regarding who would be using the
facility and potential traffic problems. Mr. Cerbone noted that a protected
left-turn was slated for Range Drive and the long-term plans also called for an
alternative access to Crestline from Whitecap Drive. The proposed facility was
also within walking distance of the schools. Mr. Church also noted that the
property had been donated for park purposes. Mr. Thompson clarified that the
property was zoned Residential, which is why they had to apply for a conditional
use permit. Mr. Cerbone and Ms. Lehmann also noted that the adjoining 15-acre
parcel was slated for a pedestrian walkway and bike paths which would also
alleviate potential traffic problems. Mr. Thompson noted that the adjoining
property owner had submitted a letter of support.
Chair Balen closed the public hearing. Following a brief
deliberation, Commissioner Hauser thanked the members of the Parks Committee for
their participation. She then moved to approve the conditional use
application. Commissioner Milligan seconded. The motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
7. OLD BUSINESS: None.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Goalsetting - 2001: Staff noted that the development code
revisions, riparian zone ordinance and expansion of the UGB were tabled until
the June 7 Council meeting. The Commission expressed concern that the revisions
to the development code, which had been worked on for so long, would never be
adopted. Following a brief discussion, the Commission determined that one
project might be to develop some design criteria for future development,
especially in the commercial areas.
B. Planning Report: Mr. Thompson noted his written report was
contained in the packet materials, and stated that they had asked the Sheriff's
department to tag 14 vehicles the previous week in an attempt to rid the City's
rights-of-way of illegal, dangerous and inoperable vehicles. He was also
monitoring the vehicles at 425 Cedar Street, noting that the numbers and types
of vehicles change, but there are always two or three which are parked outside
the fenced area. He indicated that he had spoken with the City Administrator
regarding the problem, Mr. Dowsett suggested that the owner be cited first,
before bringing the issue to the Planning Commission.
9. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:08 p.m., there being no further business
to come before the Commission, Commissioner Cutter moved to adjourn.
Commissioner Hauser seconded, and the motion carried unanimously
on a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan, City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 15th day of May, 2001.
SIGNED by the Chair this 15th day of May, 2001
Samuel L. Balen, Chair