Minutes by Year and Month

2017 (click to show)
2016 (click to show)
2015 (click to show)
2014 (click to show)
2013 (click to show)
2012 (click to show)
2011 (click to show)
2010 (click to show)
2009 (click to show)
2008 (click to show)
2007 (click to show)
2006 (click to show)
2005 (click to show)
2004 (click to show)
2003 (click to show)
2002 (click to show)
2001 (click to show)
2000 (click to show)
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

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