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)

MAY 15, 2001

1. ROLL CALL: Vice-Chair Hauser called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Vice-Chair Hauser and Commissioners Uhl, Cutter, Meatzie and Milligan answered the roll. Chair Balen was absent. A quorum was present.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Meatzie apologized for missing the last meeting.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes of the April 17, 2001 meeting. Commissioner Milligan moved to accept the minutes as presented. Commissioner Meatzie seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: Case File #2-V-01, Lon & Sharon Clow, Request for Variance: Vice-Chair Hauser opened the public hearing and gave a brief explanation of the process of the public hearing. She then called for abstentions, ex parte contact, bias and conflicts of interest. None were announced. There was no opposition to any member of the Commission participating.
 Staff Report: City Planner Thompson gave a brief review of his prepared staff report. He explained that the lots in question were now owned by two separate entities. He noted that only the Planning Commission could remove the requirement imposed on the property in 1994. Mr. Thompson mentioned that there is a 35' height restriction and almost 100% lot coverage permitted in the C-1 zone, so there may be ways for the parking to be provided. He asked that the applicant's presentation clarify the relationship between the four parcels of property.
 Applicant's Presentation: Lon Clow addressed the Commission in regard to the request. He noted that the reason that they were asking for the variance was to accommodate a potential buyer who would like to develop the property. He noted that the parking was seldom, if ever, used. He explained that, in 1994, the old building was removed and a new building was built and the easement was required before the new building could be sold. Mr. Clow noted that this was a replacement of the old building, not a new building. He felt that the easement should never have been required and he should never have had to sign it.
 Vice-Chair Hauser expressed confusion that the original building had never required the parking spaces. Mr. Clow explained that this requirement was imposed before the occupancy permit could be issued. Mr. Clow indicated that he owned the tax lots 1400 and 1401. He sold the drug store property in 1994, and the easement and occupancy permit were required as part of the closing.
 He explained that he was coming to the Commission to ask for alleviation of necessity for the parking easement. The new owner of the property would be required to provide his own parking at the time a structure was built. Mr. Clow did not agree that the new structure should have to adhere to the parking requirements, as it was built to replace the old structure. He confirmed that there were not apartments above the old building, the opportunity to put in apartments came when the new roof was pitched, rather than flat.
 Commissioner Milligan noted that the new building had to comply with the requirements of the flood zone and new electrical codes and asked if it had to come to the Planning Commission for approval. City Planner Thompson indicated that he had copies of the previous actions on the property.
 Commissioner Cutter asked if it was understood by both parties at the time that the property was sold that the easement had to go with the property. Mr. Clow responded that it wasn't an issue at the time, as the sale had to go through, with a tight timeline with regard to closing and opening and moving a drug store. Commissioner Cutter asked about the subsequent sale to the new owners. Mr. Clow responded that he was not a party to the second sale.
 Commissioner Meatzie explained that at the time, the building was beyond repair and had to be replaced, which is why the new requirements were imposed.
 Mr. Marks, owner of the drug store, noted that the deed required either the easement or monetary compensation. Commissioner Cutter clarified that that legal agreement would not be affected by the decision of the Planning Commission.
 Jody Biber addressed the Commission, noting that Waldport Insurance had an interest in buying the property. She asked that the Commission consider that the requirement may have been imposed in haste.
 Don Fulharts addressed the Commission, noting that he was the owner of Waldport Insurance. He indicated that they had rented for twenty years and they were looking to buy a building. They would like to make it a nice facility. Of course, he would like a clear title, and if it was just a matter of sitting down with owners of Excel Drug he would work with them. He indicated that he might be rethinking the issue, and may be able to live with the easement.
 Opponent's Presentation: Susan Woodruff addressed the Commission in regard to the current parking situation, where the people are parking as close as possible to the building. She asked if the diagonal parking was removed, where would the customers park? She read from a prepared statement and urged the Commission to apply the requirements of the City's Code.
 Following discussion, the Commission determined that further information needed to be provided and consensus was to keep the record open on the case until the next Planning Commission meeting. The public hearing was continued to the next meeting on June 19 at 6:30 p.m., pending more information and possible legal counsel.
 A. Adoption of Findings:
  1) Case File #1-V-01 Don & Diane Price: Commissioner Cutter moved to adopt the findings. Commissioner Milligan seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
  2) Case File #1-C-01 City of Waldport: Commissioner Milligan moved to adopt the findings. Commissioner Cutter seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
 B. Planning Report: Mr. Thompson noted that six vehicles had been moved, and four had received letters. He gave a brief review of his meeting with Dave Perry and Matt Spangler regarding the UGB expansion. They indicated that they had no problem, with the exception of one area, a five-acre portion west of Eckman which was zoned timber/residential.
 Mike Cerbone noted that he was working on a TGM grant for the downtown area, and will be going after a TGM grant for assistance in reviewing the Development Code.
9. ADJOURNMENT: At 7:50 p.m., there being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Meatzie moved to adjourn. Commissioner Cutter seconded, and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan, City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 19th day of June, 2001.
SIGNED by the Chair this 19th day of June, 2001.
Samuel L. Balen, Chair