Welcome to the
     City of Canyonville                                                   

250 N Main, Canyonville, OR 97417
                               
         541-839-4258 or 541-839-4020
Your Subtitle text

CANYONVILLE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES

REGULAR SESSION

April 8, 2010 

 

I.                               Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance: 
                  Chairman Sato called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

II.              Roll Call:

COMMISSION PRESENT:  Chairman Sato, Commissioners Murphy, Hill, Curtiss, Emory and Moran-Kaidme.

COMMISSION ABSENT:    Commissioner Campbell was excused.

STAFF PRESENT:                 Interim Administrator/Recorder Janelle Evans.

STAFF ABSENT:                  Deputy Recorder Joan Beckman and Superintendent Tony Lakey were excused.

 

III.             Agenda Review/Additions:

            None

 

IV.             Approval of Minutes – Regular Session 2-4-10

Commissioner Moran-Kaidme moved, Commissioner Curtiss seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the 2-4-10 meeting as written.  All voted “yes”.  The motion carried.

 

V.              Special Matters:

            None

 

VI.             Public Hearings:

1.      Application from Jim Booth for a Lot Line Adjustment to property located on South Main Street, Canyonville, Oregon and described as Tax Lots 5000, 4900 and 4800 in Section 34BA, Twp. 30S, Rng. 05W;  in Douglas County, Oregon Property I.D. Nos. R38306, R36790 and R36798.

 

*    Commissioner Sato stated the procedure for the Public Hearing would be:

                  Staff Report

                  Applicant’s Testimony

                  Those who wish to speak in favor

                  Those who wish to speak in opposition

                  Applicant’s Rebuttal

                  Reports from other Public agencies

 

**  Chairman Sato opened the Public Hearing

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if any Commissioner wished to disqualify his or herself for any personal or financial interest in this matter or report any significant ex-parte contacts.

      1.   There were none.

 

*    Chairman Sato called for the staff  report:

1.    Interim Administrator/Recorder Evans read the staff report noting an amendment to the original staff report that under Criteria 7, item 7D regarding a storm drain was to be deleted.

 

The staff report was as follows:

CRITERIA 1:  If the proposed adjustment is in conformity with existing city development plans and zoning and building ordinances and regulations.

 

1a.       The subject property is located on South/West Main Street immediately following the bridge and consists of 3 lots which are zoned R-3 Multi-Family Residential.  Parcel 1, TL#5000, .036 acres; Parcel 2, TL#4800, 1.30 acres; Parcel 3, TL#4900, .80 acres.

 

1b.       The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment consisting of increasing the size of Parcel 1, TL#5000 to 1.0 acres, decreasing Parcel 2, TL#4800 to .77 acres and Parcel 3, TL#4900 to .69 acres

 

1c.       The property has not been surveyed as to the proposed lot line adjustments.  After the survey is completed, staff will review the map for substantial compliance with the approved application.

 

CONDITION: 

 

1.         The applicant must submit the official survey map to staff prior to recording the survey.  Staff will check the map for substantial compliance with the approved lot line adjustment application. 

 

CRITERIA 2:  That adequate provisions have or will be made for the physical means of providing public utilities, such as water, sewers, power, telephones etc.

 

2a.       There is an 8” water main located in the South Main Street right of way which can be tapped into in order to provide city water for all 3 lots.

 

2b.       TL #4900 has an existing structure on it.  City records indicate an active ¾” service on this tax lot.  City records do not indicate an active sewer service.

           

2c.       Superintendent Lakey indicates 2 existing sewer stubs available to the property.  Prior to the lot line adjustment the location of one sewer stub is on Parcel 2, TL#4800 and one sewer stub is located on Parcel 3, TL#4900. 

 

2d.       The applicant submitted a revised lot line adjustment map on 3/26/2010.  The revised map does not indicate where the sewer line easement is located.  However, the submitted site plan does show the location.

 

2e.       According to the site plan submitted which depicts the sewer main and easement, there will be no sewer to Parcel 3, TL#4900.  An easement will need to be granted across Parcel 1, TL#5000 to the existing sewer main.

 

2f.        SDC’s have been paid for 2 residential connections.  Applicant intends to retain these two connections for future development.  Parcel 1, TL#5000 will be required to pay SDC’s for water and sewer services prior to development.

 

CONDITION:

 

1.                  An easement to the sewer main must be provided for each parcel.  Prior to recording the LLA, the applicant must be granted a sewer easement across Parcel 1, TL#5000 to Parcel 3, TL#4900.  A copy of the easement must be provided to the City.

 

2.                  The location of the sewer easement needs to be depicted on the map prior to recording.

 

CRITERIA 3:  That streets or easements have been or will be provided for ingress and egress.

 

3a.       Applicant intends to retain Parcel 2, TL#4800 and Parcel 3, TL#4900 upon which ingress and egress will be gained from South Main Street.

 

3b.       Proposed Parcel 1, TL#5000 fronts on South Main Street which will provide vehicular access to the site.

           

CRITERIA 4: The lot line adjustment does not result in the creation of any new lots.

 

FINDINGS:

 

4a.       The proposed lot line adjustments include 3 parcels, Parcel 2 - TL #4800, Parcel 3 TL #4900 and Parcel 1 TL#5000.  After the lines are adjusted there will still be 3 lots.  The only change will be to the size of the parcels.  The adjustment will reduce the size of parcels 2 and 3 and increase the size of parcel 1.          

 

CRITERIA 5:  All resulting lots must be no more nonconforming than the original lots with respect to minimum lot area, dimensions and building setback requirements for the given zone.

 

5a.       Section 18.28.050 (A) of the zoning ordinance requires that the minimum lot size shall not be less than six thousand square feet.  The proposed lot line adjustments conform to the code requirement.

 

5b.       Section 18.28.060 (A) of the zoning ordinance requires that the front setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet for one story buildings and a minimum of twenty-five feet for two story buildings. 

 

5c.       There is an existing structure on proposed Parcel 3, TL#4900 which is non-conforming with respect to the front property line. However, the proposed lot line adjustment does not make the structure deviate further from the required setback.

 

5d.       The lot line adjustment will reduce the size of tax lot #4800 to .77 acres and tax lot #4900 to .69 acres.  Tax lot #5000 will increase in size to 1.0 acres.

           

CRITERIA 6:  All adjustments will occur within a given zone and are not permitted among differing zones.

 

6a.       All 3 parcels are zoned R-3 Multi-Family Residential.

 

CRITERIA 7:  Lot line adjustments shall not alter or impede the public right-of-way or any recorded easement.

           

7a.       There is a deeded easement found in the Book of Records, Douglas County, Oregon; Book 358 Pages 709 and 710 for the purpose of making a channel change in Canyon Creek.  The developer is advised that the subject easement could impact the potential development of TL #4800 and #4900.

 

7b.       The map submitted by the applicant indicates a high water bank of Canyon Creek and the deeded easement.  Applicant has been advised that the easement could interfere with future development.

 

7c.       The map indicates a sewer easement across Parcel 1, TL#5000 and on Parcel 2, TL#4800, no building can be placed on the easement.

 

DELETE 7d.  Staff discovered an existing storm drain which is located 40’ north of the sewer man hole and runs east to west across the subject properties.  To staff’s knowledge there is not a recorded easement for the storm drain.  A 15’ sewer easement will need to be depicted on the map.

 

*    Staff’s  recommendation was to approve the LLA subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Interim Administrator/Recorder Evans asked if there were any questions.

 

Discussion:  The commissioners generally discussed the existing building being non-conforming and if torn down any construction would have to conform to current standards, that the sewer easement could  have a road built over it but no buildings, the 80’ deeded easement to the state depicted on the map and riparian zone setbacks and standards.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if the applicant wished to speak.

1.    Jim Booth spoke in favor of the LLA and his intentions for development to the two remaining parcels.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if the commissioners had questions for the applicant.

1.   There were none.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of the proposal.  

1.   Mike Morris, PO Box 129, Days Creek, OR spoke in favor of the proposal.

2.   James Burford, 1323 NW. Valejo  St., Roseburg, OR spoke in favor of the proposal.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if there was anyone who wished to speak in opposition to the proposal.

1.   There were none.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if there were any other Public agency reports.

1.   There were none.

 

**  Chairman Sato closed the Public Hearing.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if the commission had any further questions or discussion.

1.    The commission generally discussed that any concerns about the creek would be addressed upon future development and that the applicant would meet all the conditions as noted in the staff report.

 

Commissioner Hill moved, Commissioner Moran-Kaidme seconded a motion to approve the application for the Lot Line Adjustment to property located on South Main Street, Canyonville, Oregon and described as Tax Lots 5000, 4900 and 4800 subject to the conditions as amended.  All voted “yes”.  The motion carried.      

 

2.    Application from Mike Morris / Kingdom Hall for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a church with parking lot on Tax Lot 5000 in Section 34BA, Twp. 30S, Rng 05W.

  

**  Chairman Sato opened the Public Hearing

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if any Commissioner wished to disqualify his or herself for any personal or financial interest in this matter or report any significant ex-parte contacts.

      1.   There were none.

 

*    Chairman Sato called for the staff  report:

1.    Interim Administrator/Recorder Evans read the staff report noting an amendment to Criteria 3, item 3j was added, item 3k regarding the storm drain needed to be deleted, there was a second item 3k that would remain and Condition #6 requiring a 15’ easement was to be deleted.

 

The staff report was as follows:

CRITERIA 1:  The site size, dimensions, location, topography and access are adequate for the needs of the proposed use, considering the proposed building mass, parking, traffic, noise, vibration, exhaust/emissions, light, glare, erosion, odor, dust, visibility, safety and aesthetic considerations.

 

1a.       Review of this conditional use request is subject to approval of a lot line adjustment for Jim Booth which will increase the lot size from .36 acres to 1.0 acres. Mr. Booth has filed a lot line adjustment application for Planning Commission approval at the April 8, 2010 meeting.

 

1b.       The plot plan layout indicates the parcel size will be 1 acre in size, a total of 78 parking spaces will be provided with access from Main Street.  The building will be a single story structure approximately 4,000 square feet in size with a seating capacity of 165 people.

 

1c.       The subject property is located within the multifamily residential (R3) zone which allows churches as a conditionally permitted use.  The setback regulations for the R3 zone are:

·         Front yard:  Fifteen feet for one story buildings and twenty five feet for two story buildings.

·         Side yard:  Minimum of five feet except the setback shall be a minimum of fifteen feet where the lot abuts an R1 zone, and shall be a minimum of twenty five feet where the lot abuts a street.

·         Rear Yard:  a minimum of ten feet.

 

1d.       The proposed setbacks for the church are 66’ from Main Street which would be considered the front yard, 60’ in the rear yard and 14’ on the south which is the closest side yard.  The property located to the south is zoned R1 and the 14’ setback does not comply with the required 15’ setback where the lot abuts an R1 zone.

 

1e.       The adjacent zoning to the subject property is multifamily residential to the north, multi-family residential to the west, single family residential to the south and commercial, multi-family residential and manufactured home/duplex residential to the east.

 

1f.        The maximum building height in the R3 zone is 35 feet.  According to the elevation drawings submitted the building will be a single story and not exceed 35 feet in height.

 

1g.       Section 18.76.100 of the Canyonville Zoning Code regulates off street parking requirements.  The code does not specifically address parking requirement for churches.  The closest specified use would be community service which requires a parking area equal to two times the gross floor area.

 

1h.       The Zoning Code does not specify the number of parking spaces required based on the use and size of the proposed building.  It only specifies how much area has to be available for parking. Without a specified number of spaces it is impossible to determine if adequate parking is being provided.    

 

1i.        The Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) has developed a model development code for small Cities.  According to the model code a typical parking requirement for a church would be based on the seating capacity of a church.  The code requires one space per four seats. Applying this code to the proposed development would require the applicant to provide 42 parking spaces.

 

1j.        The applicant’s submitted plan indicates there will be a total of 78 parking spaces provided.  Each space will be a minimum of  9’ x 18’ which complies with the minimum parking dimensions listed in the City’s Design Standards .  All individual spaces shall be clearly marked with painted lines and lettering.

 

1k.       The design standards in Section 16.06.050 adopted in 2005 conflict with the existing language in the land use section 18.76.110 parking and loading requirements. In 2005 the City established a special design standard section within the municipal code which was to address all standards for public improvements including parking lots.  However, the parking and loading section in the zoning portion of the Municipal Code was never deleted.  The new section requires all parking areas to have a durable dust free surfacing of asphaltic concrete or Portland cement.

 

1l.        The applicant’s plan does not indicate if the parking area will be paved.

           

1m.      The parking design standards listed in Section 16.06.050 of the Municipal Code state that all parking areas, except those required in conjunction with single-family or two-family dwellings that abut a residential district shall conform to the screening requirements as set forth in the City’s site design ordinance.

 

CONDITION:

 

1.         All parking, maneuvering and access aisles must be paved or concreted.

 

2.         The applicant must comply with the minimum 15’ setback from the south property line for property which abuts an R1 zone.

 

CRITERIA 2:  The negative impacts of the proposed use on adjacent properties and on the public can be mitigated through application of other code standards or other reasonable conditions of approval.

 

2a.       The applicant’s plan indicates a 6’ tall block wall located on the west property line which will separate Mr. Booth’s property from the Church property.  The block wall will contain a 15’ wide emergency access gate. The perimeter of the property will be landscaped with low growing vegetation as depicted on the site plan in the shaded gray areas. 

 

2b.       According to the building elevation drawings submitted by the applicant the building will be a single story building.  The exterior façade of the building will consist of a combination of brick work and horizontal siding with a composite roof.

 

CRITERIA 3:  All Required public facilities have adequate capacity to serve the proposal.

 

3a.       The subject property is not currently provided with sewer and water.  There is an 8” water main located within the Main Street right of way adjacent to the property that can be tapped to provide water.  The applicant will be responsible for the cost of providing water to the site and the system development charges for water.

 

3b.       There is no existing sewer stub for the subject property.  There is a sewer main which crosses the subject site which could be tapped to provide sewer for the project.  The applicant will be responsible for the cost of obtaining sewer service for the site and the system development charges for the sewer.

 

3c.       A copy of the proposed development and a memo requesting comments by March 22, 2010 was provided to the Fire Chief.  The City has received the following concerns from         the fire department:

·         Distance from existing fire hydrants exceed maximum spacing, therefore a new Waterous fire hydrant will need to be placed at an agreed on location.

·         Access onto the property will need to have two ways in and two ways out.  This can be completed by two combination drives.  Each lane shall be a minimum of 14’ wide.  Combination driveways will need to have a 28’ minimum width.

·         All buildings will need to conform to Federal, State and Local Fire Codes.

·         If the Church is surrounded by a concrete wall (fence) access to the property must be available at all times.  If gated a Knox box will need to be at both access points and may also be located on the building for access to the building.

·         Building capacity of 300 or more, will need to have a fire alarm.

 

3d.       The site plan indicates that the church will be accessed by a 24’ drive off of South Main Street. South Main Street is classified as a local street.  Municipal Code Section        16.06.112 (B) 3 & 4 addressed the functional classification for streets.  It specifically states:        

            Local Streets:  local streets provide access to abutting property and do not serve                  to move through traffic.  Local streets standards will be further categorized by              adjacent land use into residential, commercial and industrial streets.

 

            Local Streets-Commercial/Industrial:  Within the local street classification, there       may be considerable difference between the kind of improvement specified where      commercial or industrial land uses access a local street, as compared to the kind                     of improvement specified for residential access.  Generally, a local street                classification in commercial or industrial areas will require an improvement                equal to that specified for a collector classification.

 

3e.       The right of way for South Main narrows just south of the bridge from 80’ to 60’ and has a developed travel surface of 20’ in width.  Most local streets have a pavement width of 36 feet.

 

3f.        Staff has concerns about a single entrance to the parking lot due to the narrow width of the road.  It could provide a congestion problem at the entrance.  The need for a second entrance should be evaluated as part of the traffic impact study.

 

3g.       Section 16.06.013 regulates when a traffic analysis is required.  Section A states a traffic analysis report may be required by the Public Works Director depending on the potential impact to existing street systems for a development when the development will generate one thousand vehicle trips per weekday or more, or when a development’s location, proposed site plan, traffic characteristics could affect traffic safety access management, street capacity or known traffic problems or deficiencies in a development’s area, or for any development of four residential dwelling units or larger.

 

3h.       A traffic analysis has not been submitted.  The applicant states that a traffic analysis will be completed and submitted prior to beginning construction.

 

3i.        The Canyonville Development Code Section 16.06.060 requires all new development to install a sidewalk and curb.  The applicant’s submitted plan does not indicate a sidewalk or curb.

 

ADD 3j.  There is a drainage problem adjacent to the subject property.  Currently the drainage within the area accumulates in this area.  There is an existing storm drain that runs east and west across the property approximately 40’ north of the sewer man hole.  The applicant will need to submit an engineered storm water plan to address the flooding in the area.

 

DELETE 3k.   The Public Works Department was not aware of the existing storm drain until 4-2-10 when flooding in the area caused the discovery.  According to Public Works there is no record of the storm drain or easement.  A 15’ easement will need to be granted to the City for maintenance of the system.

 

3k.       The City of Canyonville does not have an engineer on staff.  All engineering work is             contracted with the City‘s engineer of record who charges on an hourly rate.  Engineered plans will need to be submitted for the development of the parking lot, drainage and connection to the City water and sewer.  These plans will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.  The applicant will be responsible for the cost of review.

 

CONDITION:

 

1.         Approval of this conditional use permit application to construct a church on 1 acre of           land located within the multi-family residential zone is conditioned upon the approval of the lot line adjustment to increase the parcel size from .36 acres to 1 acre.  Any substantial reduction in the proposed lot size will require approval of a new permit.

 

2.         A traffic analysis addressing the following objectives must be prepared by a licensed engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to obtaining any development permits. 

·         Ease and safety of traffic flow on the surrounding street system.

·         Effective and safe transfer of vehicle traffic between the site and the street system to provide convenient, safe and efficient on site and off site movement of vehicles, pedestrians, transit, service and delivery vehicles.

·         Effective mitigation for adverse site generated traffic impacts on affected streets and intersections.

 

3.         The applicant must install a 5’ sidewalk and curb on South Main Street running the length of the property adjacent to Main Street.

 

4.         All system development charges must be paid prior to any development.

 

5.         The applicant must submit an engineered drainage plan to the City for review and approval prior to obtaining any development permits.

 

DELETE 6.     The City must be granted a 15’ easement centered on the existing storm drain.

 

*    Staff’s  recommendation was to approve the conditional use permit to establish a church in the Residential R-3 zone subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.

Interim Administrator/Recorder Evans asked if there were any questions.

 

Discussion:  The commissioners discussed Criteria 3, Item 3g regarding the traffic analysis, that the planning commission would like to see the report before approval of the CUP, that it should include a study of the bridge prior to construction and that it should be written in the conditions that if the traffic study isn’t approved by the City’s Engineer the CUP would be void.  The commissioners further discussed using an alternate route for moving construction equipment.

 

      Staff added the following wording under Criteria 3, condition 2:

 

ADD Approval of this application is based on approval of a traffic analysis study.  If the traffic study is not approved by the City Engineer the conditional use permit is void. 

 

Staff also added the following condition to the staff report:

ADD 6.              All construction equipment must utilize Elliott Street for access.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if the applicant wished to speak.

1.         Mike Morris spoke in favor of the proposal highlighting the traffic and bridge study, occupancy, construction and that he had been discussing details with Fire Chief Brown.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if the commissioners had questions for the applicant.

1.   There were none.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of the proposal. 

1.   Jim Booth, PO Box 162, Azalea, OR spoke in favor of the proposal.

           

      *    Chairman Sato asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition of the     proposal.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if there were any other Public agency reports.

1.   There were none.

 

**  Chairman Sato closed the Public Hearing.

 

*    Chairman Sato asked if the commission had any further questions or discussion.

1.   There were none.

 

Commissioner Hill moved, Commissioner Emory seconded a motion to approve the application for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a church with parking lot on Tax Lot 5000 in Section 34BA, Twp. 30S, Rng 05W. subject to the conditions as amended.  All voted “yes”.  The motion carried.

 

VII.           Finding of Fact and Decision:

None

 

VIII.          Discussion and or Decision:

                  None

 

IX.             Business from the Public: 

            None

 

X.              Other Commission Business:

                  None

                 

XI.             Correspondence:

                   None

 

XII.           Announcements:

                  1.   City Council – Monday, April 19, 2010 @ 7:00 p.m.

                  2.   Planning Commission- Thursday, May 6, 2010 @ 7:00 p.m.

 

XIII.          Adjourn:

                  Being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

 

SUBMITTED BY:                                                                APPROVED BY:

 

 

_______________________________                                   _________________________

Janelle Evans, Administrator/Recorder                               Clarence Sato, Chairman

 

Website Builder