JANUARY 22, 2002
1. ROLL CALL: Vice-Chair Hauser called the
meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. Commissioners Hauser, Meatzie, Cutter and Cvar.
Commissioner Milligan arrived at 6:35 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioner Uhl were
absent. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Cutter asked
about the status of the stop signs at Crestline and Range. Staff informed him
that the County was still studying the situation.
4. MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the
October 16, 2001 meeting. Commissioner Meatzie moved to approve the
minutes, Commissioner Cutter seconded and the motion carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARING: 3-V-01 - Jack Peterson Request for
Variance: Vice-Chair Hauser opened the Public Hearing, and read the applicable
criteria for the request. She then called for abstentions, ex parte contact, and
conflicts of interest. None were stated.
Staff Report: City Planner Thompson reviewed the
staff report, noting that the property was in an R-3 zone, and was in Peterson
Park. He turned the Commission's attention to the requirements for granting of a
variance. He stated that the front and street side yard setbacks were 20', and
the applicant was asking for a variance to the street side yard to 11'. He
reviewed his recommendations for denial of the variance.
Applicant's Testimony: Jack
Peterson addressed the Commission, and presented them with a handout. He then
made some corrections to the staff report, which were duly noted. He felt he did
meet the first requirement, noting that the constraints imposed by the building
location, drainfield location, and lot size limited his ability to locate a
garage on his property. He noted he wanted to put in a two-car garage, as he and
his wife both had vehicles they wished to store indoors. He contended that the
20-foot setback was intended to allow for parking a vehicle in the drive without
extending into the street. In his opinion, there were no adverse impacts on
sight distance or health, safety or aesthetics. He felt that a single-car garage
devalues property, as one car would then be parked in a driveway. He stated that
the fact that he had no room for putting in a two-car garage was a hardship.
Granting the variance would meet the intent of code, by allowing the cars to be
stored indoors. Neighbors evidently are in favor of project, as there were no
objections filed.
Commissioner Cutter noted that the
drawing showed the garage was detached and was about 5' away from the house. He
wondered if attaching the garage would decrease the setback. Mr. Peterson noted
that the drawing submitted that evening was more accurate than the one submitted
with the building permit, and stated that 20' wide by 24' was standard for
double-car garage. Commissioner Hauser asked about the dimensions of a
single-car garage, Commissioner Cutter responded that the minimum that any
contractor would recommend was 12' to 14'. Cvar noted that the two drawings were
drastically different, and wondered about the location of the drainfield, which
had to be 10' from anything else on the property. Commissioner Cutter
ascertained that the slab was already poured. His concern was that the new
drawing did not appear to account for any overhang. Mr. Thompson noted that this
would not count toward the setback.
Proponent's Testimony : Peggy
Wentworth, mother-in-law and adjacent property owner, addressed the Commission.
She noted that the two-car garage would be to the betterment of all concerned.
Visibly it would prevent an eyesore of parked cars in the yard and along the
street, and would not lower property values in the area.
Opponent's Testimony: None.
Deliberation: Chair Hauser
closed the hearing and opened the meeting for deliberation. Commissioner Cutter
noted that in argument of variance requirement #2, he felt it does apply, as the
applicant has shown that in order to maintain a request for a two-car garage on
a piece of property, the location of the house and drainfield did make it
difficult to empower the property owner to enjoy a property right similar to
others in the area. He felt it was unfortunate that the slab had already been
poured, as it could have been placed closer to the home. A one-car garage was
not practical, without moving it closer to the house even that could meet the
minimum setback requirements. Commissioner Cutter also noted that he felt 3, 4,
and 5 were also met. Commissioner Meatzie mentioned he had driven by the
property, and vision was not an issue. Also, given the configuration of the
property, if the other houses could have a two-car garage, so should he.
Commissioner Cvar stated that he had a problem with getting a plan in with an
application and then being presented with a totally different plan at the
meeting. He suggested putting the decision off for further investigation. City
Planner Thompson noted that the Commission could go another 30 days, but the
decision would have to be made within the 120-day window, including the appeal.
Commissioner Hauser asked if the Commission was setting a precedent by this
decision. Commissioner Milligan noted that the drawing that came with the plan
had a notation of location of the drainfield, which the new drawing did not. She
stated that she would like to have the additional information of the dimensions
of the drainfield for that particular property. Commissioner Cutter noted a
concern about moving the garage further from the house in order to accommodate
the setbacks, if the Commission required it to be relocated on the property.
Commissioner Cvar moved to hold the request over to the next meeting, and
request the Planner to get information on the drainfield and any other
information necessary. Commissioner Milligan seconded. The motion carried,
with Commissioners Hauser, Milligan, Meatzie and Cvar voting "Aye",
Commissioner Cutter voting "Nay". The next meeting will be February
19, 2002. Mr. Thompson will take a copy of the most recently submitted plan and
the county records and do an on-site inspection of the property.
7. OLD BUSINESS: None.
8. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Request for
Extension - 2-S-94, Whispering Woods: Mr. Thompson explained that the materials
in the packet were submitted by Vista Land Corporation's attorney, and at the
back of the material was the Waldport City Attorney's response. He gave a brief
review of the history of the requests for extensions. Commissioner Cutter asked
about the 1996 extension, noting that although the sidewalks were eliminated,
the requirement for curbs was still included. Mr. Thompson noted that the
developer was allowed to ask for an extension, though it was not a public
hearing. Doug Holbrook, attorney for Vista Land Corp., addressed the Commission.
He explained that what was before the Commission was a request for a time
extension. The original application was in 1994, the approval was given in 1995.
Vista voluntarily agreed to contribute to straightening out Norwood Drive as
part of that approval. He stated that one decision the Commission had to make
was whether they could legally reattach a condition which had been disposed of
previously. He explained that the extension is governed by the 1994 version of
the City's code. Commissioner Cutter asked if any improvements had yet been
made, the answer was "No". Mr. Holbrook noted language in 1994 code
which did imply that conditions could be attached when considering a request for
extension. Mr. Schulte addressed the Commission and gave a history to-date. At
the time of the original application, the subdivision had 64 lots. The
realignment of Norwood was not part of the original discussion. This came about
when he had decided to change from 64 lots to 48 lots and brought up Norwood
Avenue as part of that reduction, and was based on the consideration of dropping
the number and increasing the size of the lots. He stated that the surrounding
subdivisions had asphalt curbs and no sidewalks. Putting in sidewalks would also
require additional property and removal of additional trees. Mr. Schulte noted
that previous extensions had not had a requirement for sidewalks, and Mr.
Holbrook noted that the sidewalk issue came in as a result of the latest request
for extension. The extension from February, 2000 had included the performance
bond, the road agreement and an updated geotech. Commissioner Cutter asked if
the other extension was valid, if the conditions had not been met. Commissioner
Milligan asked if the riparian zone had placed any restrictions, Mr. Thompson
indicated that it had not. Mr. Schulte noted considerable effort had been
expended to-date on the subdivision, although ground had not yet been broken.
Commissioner Cutter asked the City Attorney if the Road Agreement had not yet
been completed, how could they grant an extension? Mr. Hammersley responded that
there had been a tentative approval on a subdivision, which had been extended in
1996, 1998 and 2000. His take was that these conditions had to be met prior to
construction, rather than as part of the extensions. He also stated that if the
Commission wanted to address the requirement for sidewalks in the current
extension, they should do so. Also, the current code allows only a one-year
extension. This could be argued either way, but he would suggest consideration
of a two-year extension. Commissioner Hauser stated that part of the job of the
Commission was to make the City a better place to live, and she felt it was
important that the Commission now require sidewalks. Mr. Schulte responded that
this was a "pocket area" that would have sidewalks where no other area
had sidewalks. He also noted that this lent itself to an "urban
appeal" as well. Commissioner Cutter indicated that he did not feel
sidewalks were always appropriate, and regretted that previous Commissioners had
not dealt with the sidewalk issue, leaving it to the Mayor to append the
requirement to the road agreement. Mr. Holbrook noted that because the 1994 code
was applicable to the development, it would be entitled to a 2-year extension,
and the sidewalk requirement was not applicable, by state statute. Their
position was that the verbiage in the City's code may allow
"bootstrapping" new requirements, but the State code did not allow
that. Mr. Hammersley's stance was that the developer was on notice given in the
City's code, that additional requirements may be imposed. However, he would not
recommend holding to the one-year extension, and advised allowing the two-year
extension. Further discussion ensued, regarding the proximity of the property to
the City's park property and the proposed trail system in the City's
Transportation Plan. Mr. Schulte stated he could see putting in sidewalks on one
side given the idea of putting a trail in. He also asked if every subdivision
from now on would be required to have sidewalks. He then suggested that the
Commission consider getting rid of the agreement, and putting in sidewalks on
one side. Commissioner Hauser stated that the problem on Norwood was actually a
City problem, given the fact that it was a City street. She would rather see
sidewalks, and let the road take care of itself as time permits. Commissioner
Cutter's final statement was that he respectfully disagreed with the requirement
for sidewalks, however, the current code states that sidewalks would be required
and extensions were only for one year. In order to be legal, if they were going
to enforce the requirement, the application had to follow the new code.
Commissioner Cvar noted that, as a person who walks, he looked for sidewalks for
safety as well as aesthetics, and appreciated their existence. Commissioner
Milligan moved that the Planning Commission grant the extension for two
years, with a condition for sidewalks on both sides of the street, and getting
rid of the road agreement. Commissioner Cvar seconded. The motion then carried
unanimously on a voice vote.
B. Planning Reports:
The Commission considered the Planning reports from November, 2001 and January
2002.
C. Request for
Exception - Alan and Jane Clark: Mr. Thompson noted that this was a request to
place a 6-foot wood fence adjacent to Crestline Drive. He explained that this
was a corner lot, on View and Crestline. Commissioner Cvar noted that he had
looked at the property, and the level of the road did vary from the front to the
back of the property. The applicants explained their proposal, noting that the
fence would be inside the property line and would be on the house side of the
trees and shrubbery. Following discussion, Commissioner Cutter moved to
accept the proposal. Commissioner Milligan seconded. Commissioner Cvar
noted the absence of visual aids in making the decision and moved to
amend the motion, to grant approval based on submission of a plan showing where
the fence would be located. Commissioner Hauser asked if the Commission would
then be requiring something that was not required by law. The amendment died
for lack of a second. The main motion then carried, with Commissioners
Hauser, Milligan, Meatzie and Cutter voting "Aye", Commissioner Cvar
voting "Nay". Commissioner Meatzie suggested that, in the future,
drawings be submitted in conjunction with requests of this nature.
D. Conditions for
Towing Business: Robert Underwood, new manager for the towing business, was
present to address any concerns. Commissioner Cutter excused himself from the
discussion, as he had availed himself of the business' services recently. Mr.
Underwood indicated that he had been in the process of cleaning up the last
person's mess, and stated he had removed all non-running vehicles from the
premises. Mr. Thompson gave a review of the issue to-date. He noted that the
conditions on the business license were attached to the business license, and
the letters sent also contained the list of requirements. He had all the
certified stubs to prove those letters had been received. He noted that the
Commission was not able to remove a business license, but could recommend
removal to the Council. Mr. Thompson showed the photographs he had taken to
support the claim, and indicated it had been an on-going problem, being cleaned
up when notified, then reverting in a couple of weeks. Mr. Underwood explained
that he had been hired as a tow truck driver in December, and had been promoted
to manager a week ago. Commissioner Milligan moved to recommend to the
City Council to hold a hearing on the revocation of the business license, and
requiring the business owner to appear at that hearing. Commissioner Cvar seconded,
and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
9. ADJOURNMENT: At 8:50 p.m., there being no further business
to come before the Commission, Commissioner Cutter moved to adjourn,
Commissioner Milligan seconded, and the motion carried
unanimously.
Respectfully submitted,
Reda A. Quinlan, City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 19th day of February, 2002.
SIGNED by the Chair this 19th day of February, 2002.
Samuel Balen, Chair