APRIL, 2004 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
APRIL 27, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Balen called the meeting
to order at 6:30 p.m. Chair Balen and Commissioners Perry, Meatzie, Milligan,
Uhl, Cutter and Cvar answered the roll. A quorum was present.
2. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: None.
3. COMMISSION COMMENTS AND CONCERNS: Commissioner Cutter noted that, in the
newspaper, the City of Waldport Budget Committee had allocated about $2,000 of
tax dollars to charitable organizations. He felt there are issues such as
sidewalks which might better benefit from those monies.
4. CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES: The Commission considered the minutes from the
February 24 and March 23, 2004 meetings. Commissioner Meatzie moved to approve
the February 24 minutes as presented. Commissioner Cutter seconded, and the
motion carried unanimously on a voice vote. Commissioner Meatzie moved to
approve the March 23 minutes as presented. Commissioner Cutter seconded, and the
motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
5. CORRESPONDENCE: None.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Chair Balen noted that he would move Case File B up on the
agenda to accommodate the presenters as there was a special condition with that
case. Mr. Lewis informed the Commission that the need for a hearing and variance
does not exist, and reviewed his memorandum to the Commission, which explained
that once a tax lot has been legally established, if a consolidation takes place
the tax lot can be re-established by submittal of a letter of request to the
County Planning Department. The request is then forwarded to the local planner
to ensure that there are no outstanding issues. As long as the line has not been
removed from the assessors map, the applicant would not have to go through a
vacation process. Chair Balen indicated that he understood the process, as he
also had two tax lots which he had consolidated for tax purposes. Mr. Lewis
noted that when a request to re-establish a tax lot is made to the County the
two issues that would concern the City would be to ensure that a building would
not be built across property lines once the line is re-established, and that the
building permits would need to conform to current standards. Lots that have been
recognized by the County assessor as joined by an owner for tax purposes may be
reclassified as individual properties, and the Planning Commission has no
jurisdiction over the owner's ability to reestablish the lots as they once were.
Following a brief discussion, Chair Balen suggested simply adopting the
memorandum as the policy for the Planning Commission's purposes. Chair Balen
moved to adopt the Planner's memorandum as the policy to address future requests
to re-establish tax lots. Commissioner Cutter seconded. Commissioner Cvar asked
if it was the County or the City that made a decision in regard to the criteria.
Mr. Lewis responded that both would need to make determinations. Mr. Cvar also
noted that the hearing fees would need to be refunded, and Mr. Lewis concurred.
The applicant addressed the Commission, explaining that they had an architect
look at the house and it was ultimately determined that it would be more cost
effective to tear the house down than to repair it. They have decided to build
two houses, one to live in and one to sell, which is why they were requesting
the re-establishment of the original tax lots. The motion carried unanimously on
a voice vote.
The Public Hearing for Case File #4-V-03 was opened by Chair
Balen. Chair Balen called for abstentions, ex parte contact, and conflicts of
interest. Commissioner Cvar indicated that he had spoken with the applicant in
regard to submitting a plot plan drawn to scale. He did not feel that the
conversation had affected his judgment in this case.
It was noted that the applicant was not present. Chair Balen
stated that this issue had been set aside because the applicant was going to ask
for a street vacation, which would then allow him to be in compliance with
setback requirements. Mr. Lewis reported that the applicant said he began the
vacation process, which required consent from directly affected property owners,
and 60% consent from property owners within a 400-foot perimeter, and was unable
to get the consent needed. Mr. Lewis added that a copy of the agenda had been
sent to the applicant, and to all the property owners who had provided previous
testimony.
Jane and Alan Clark, owners of Carpet Techs, addressed the Commission, noting
that they are planning on purchasing the adjacent property once a building has
been placed there. They did not want to have a mobile home across from their new
business, as they are currently experiencing problems with a rental mobile home
across from their existing business. Commissioner Perry noted that the present
owner of that property had submitted a letter which had advocated placing a
smaller mobile home on the applicant's property.
It was noted that whether the building was a manufactured or stick-built home
there still are issues with the property, including the steepness of the hill.
Chair Balen noted that his concern was that the home would sit right at the foot
of the hill, and he did not want the City to be encumbered by a Planning
Commission decision to allow it. Commissioner Meatzie noted that there had been
an old two-story house on that property before. Commissioner Cvar mentioned a
House Bill which pertained to rapid slide areas, and Commissioner Perry
clarified that this was in regard to areas that are mapped by the Department of
Geology. He explained that unless the City has taken some action to be more
proactive than the State there wouldn't be any particular regulations associated
with steep slopes other than those that are currently mapped. One requirement is
that the property owner has to sign a "hold harmless" stipulation to the City.
Mr. Lewis suggested that the Commission focus on the circumstances for granting
a variance, since he would need that for findings regardless of whether the
Commission voted to grant or deny the application. He noted that the City has a
city-wide hazard/slope map provided by the City Engineers, and explained that
when the application is submitted a geotech or verification by a surveyor to
ensure that the property was exempt would be required. Chair Balen closed the
Public Hearing and opened the Planning Commission meeting for discussion.
Commissioner Uhl stated that the lot is not even a minimum size lot for R-1,
being 5226 square feet. He felt that, being a substandard lot and being close to
a hill that could potentially slip away, the situation was rather "iffy".
Commissioner Perry noted that the application met criteria (a), and that it was
a bit of a challenge to build on that site given its configuration. He concluded
that this was clearly a self-imposed hardship, a case of trying to fit a square
peg in a round hole. If the applicant had been working with a builder or
architect to design a home that was close to meeting the requirements and taking
precautions regarding the slope, then he felt it would be worthy of more
consideratoin. Commissioner Cvar agreed that it was self-imposed, that the
applicant had an existing home that he was trying to fit onto the lot. It was
noted that the applicant had not yet purchased the property. The majority of the
Commission also felt that the variance would be materially detrimental to the
neighboring properties. Following discussion, Commissioner Milligan moved to
deny the request for a variance. Commissioner Cvar seconded, and the motion
carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Discussion ensued regarding having the Planner draft the findings and the Chair
sign them prior to the next meeting. Commissioner Cvar noted that he had a
problem with doing this as a routine procedure, and Commissioner Cutter agreed,
but felt that due to the delays it would be a courtesy. Consensus of the
Commission was to allow the Chair to sign the findings when completed.
Commissioner Milligan left at 7:28 p.m.
7. DISCUSSION/ACTION ITEMS:
A. Planning Report: Mr. Lewis reviewed the Planner's report,
noting that the partition application from Mr. Mullen would also be dealt with
according to the newly established policy, and would not require the fee and
hearing process.
B. Other Issues: Commissioner Cutter asked about parking
boats, and it was noted that this falls under the Recreational Vehicle
requirements in the Code.
Commissioner Cvar suggested that when applications are submitted staff should
ensure that attachments should be done to-scale.
Chair Balen stated that the Commission needed to start
reviewing the Development Code to incorporate the new Business District section
and other related revisions and suggested that, if there were no pressing
issues, the next meeting would be devoted to this issue.
8. ADJOURNMENT: At 7:40 p.m., there being no further business to come before the
Commission, Commissioner Meatzie moved to adjourn. Commissioner Cvar seconded,
and the motion carried unanimously on a voice vote.
Respectfully submitted (as amended),
Reda A. Quinlan
City Clerk
APPROVED by the Planning Commission this 27th day of July, 2004.
SIGNED by the Chair this 27th day of July, 2004.
Samuel Balen, Chair