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

January 6, 2011

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, Weigel, and
     Emory.

COMMISSION ABSENT:         Joy Curtiss

STAFF PRESENT:                  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 
1.      Regular Session 9-2-10

Commissioner Emory  moved, Commissioner  Murphy  seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the 9-2-10 meeting as written.  All voted “yes”.  The motion carried.

V.           Special Matters:

1.   Administer Oath of Office - Dave Hill

      Administrator/Recorder Evans administered the oath of office to Dave Hill.

 

VI.          Public Hearings:

                        Chairman Sato stated the procedure for the Public Hearings would be as follows:

     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

 

1.      Lot Line Adjustment / Richard & Iola Richardson – Twp. 30, Rng. 05, Section 27CA, TL #2000 and TL #3500

 

*    Chairman Sato opened the Public Hearing for the Lot Line Adjustment / Richard
 & Iola Richardson.

 

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

      1. There were none.

 

*    Chairman Sato called for the staff report:

      1. Administrator/Recorder Evans read the hearing disclosure statement and
 gave a brief 
overview of the proposed Lot  Line Adjustment as per the following 
 staff report:

                       

*    REQUEST: 

      Mr. Richardson is requesting to change the common property line between tax 
 lot #3500 referred to as Unit 1 and tax lot #2000 referred to as Unit 2.  The
 intent is to make Unit 1 larger adding the rental property to the store property
 for future plans or expansion and separating his residence from the rental
 property.

 

DECISION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: 

 

The following is a list of the decision criteria applicable to the request.  Based on their conclusions, the Commission must approve, approve with conditions, or deny the application. Conditions may be used by the Commission in order to address concerns about how the applicant will meet the criteria applicable to the request.

 

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

 

FINDINGS:

 

1a. The subject properties are 425, 427 and 429 N Main.  The Canyonville Market is located at 425 N. Main and consists of tax lot 3500.  The adjacent tax lot 2000 contains two single family dwellings 427 and 429 N. Main.  The dwelling located at 427 is a rental property and the property owner intends to adjust the property line so that the rental and the market are on the same tax lot. 

 

1b. The applicant is proposing to adjust the east property line between tax lot 3500 and 2000 approximately 75’ to the east.  The proposed adjustment will separate the rental house and market from the owner’s private dwelling.

 

1c.  Parcel 2 is located within the single family residential zone which requires a minimum lot size of 7,500 square feet. The lot line adjustment will decrease the size of parcel 1 (tax lot 2000) to approximately 19, 600 square feet in size which exceeds the required minimum lot size.

 

1d. Parcel 1 is located within the Commercial zone which does not require a minimum lot size.  The lot line adjustment will increase parcel 1 to approximately 33,105 square feet in size.

 

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

 

FINDINGS:

 

2a. The existing uses are already serviced by public utilities and the lot line adjustment will not require the installation of new utility services.

 

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

 

FINDINGS:

 

3a. No new accesses will be required by the property line adjustment. Currently tax lot 2000 is accessed by a driveway easement across tax lot 3500. The new property line adjustment will not alter the existing easement.

           

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

 

FINDINGS:

 

4a. The lot line adjustment decreases the square footage of tax lot 2,000 to approximately 19,600 square feet and increases the size of tax lot 3500 to 33,105 square feet.  No new lots are created by the adjustment.

 

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.

 

FINDINGS:

 

5a. The applicant has not submitted a scaled plot plan.  He has submitted a property line aerial from the County’s website.  It is not possible to tell from the aerial whether the proper setback will be maintained for each lot.  The land surveyor’s map states the adjusted property line will be a minimum of 10’ from all structures.

       

5b. The minimum setback for structures located within the Single Family Residential zone is 15’ along a local street; 5’ on the side unless the side yard fronts a street, 10’ for the rear yard.  The Commercial C1 zone does not have any minimum yard requirements.

 

5c.  The house at 427 falls within the Commercial C1 zone which does not have a minimum yard requirement.  However, residential dwellings within the Commercial C1 zone are non conforming uses.  The subject property is located immediately adjacent to the Single Family Residential zone and could be rezoned in the future and sold separately from the business.  Therefore, it is imperative that it maintain the same setbacks as the residential zone.

 

5d. The house at 427 faces the east which would make the proposed lot line adjustment subject to the rear yard setback of 10 feet.

 
CONDITION:

 

1.   The minimum setback between the house at 427 and the adjusted property line must be at least 10 feet. The minimum setback for the house located at 429 is 5 feet.

 

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

 

FINDINGS:

 

6a. According to the City’s zoning map tax lot 2000 is split zoned.  The westerly portion of the property is commercial and the easterly portion is single family residential.

 

6b. The property line adjustment will eliminate the split zoning on tax lot 2000 and make the remaining portion of the lot single family residential which is consistent with the current use.  The portion of the property where the rental house is located is already zoned commercial and changing the property line is not going to change the zoning.

 

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

 

FINDINGS:

     

7a. The subject properties are already developed and the adjustment of the property line between the two lots will not impact or change any of the existing accesses.

 

Administrator/Recorder Evans stated that there is also a correction that needs to be made to the staff report.  The staff report states the property is located within the Commercial C2 zone but it should say Commercial C1.  Also there is a condition in the staff report that the applicant meet the minimum setbacks.  I added this condition because there was just a note on the site plan that says they will maintain 10’ for any structure from the lot line.  Since they did not submit a scaled plot plan I can not verify that the distance is 10 feet.

 

*     Chairman Sato asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in favor of the
   Lot Line Adjustment.

       

*     Chairman Sato asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak in opposition of
   the Lot Line Adjustment.

       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.

 

VII.       Finding of Fact and Decision:

1.      Lot Line Adjustment / Richard & Iola Richardson – Twp. 30, Rng. 05, Section 27CA, TL #2000 and TL #3500

It was Staff’s recommendation to approve the lot line adjustment subject to the condition listed in the staff report under Criteria 5.

This decision is supported by the adopted findings and justification statements which satisfied the applicable decision criteria for the lot line adjustment application.

 

Commissioner Emory  moved, Commissioner Hill seconded a motion to approve the Lot Line Adjustment / Richard & Iola Richardson subject to the condition listed under Criteria 5.   All voted “yes”.   The motion carried.

 

VIII.      Discussion and or Decision:

              None

 

IX.          Business from the Public: 

          None

 

X.           Other Commission Business:

Chairman Sato stated that in August the Commission had received a memo from the Administrator and copies of sign ordinances from other Cities.  The Administrator had asked the Commissioner’s to read the different ordinances and see if they would like to amend the City’s sign requirements.  It was the consensus of the Commission that they would like to revise the City’s sign ordinance to be similar to Winston.  City Administrator Evans said she would put it on her list of projects.  She clarified with the Commissioner’s that they want to do something similar to Winston’s ordinance but they want it to be simple and not complicated or too restrictive.

                 

XI.          Correspondence:

1.      9-27-10 Clarence Campbell resignation effective 12-31-2010.

 

XII.        Announcements:

              1.   City Council – Tuesday, January 18, 2011 @ 7:00 p.m.

              2.   Planning Commission- Thursday, February 3, 2011 @ 7:00 p.m.

 

XIII.      Adjourn:

              Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.

 

 

 

 

SUBMITTED BY:                                                       APPROVED BY:

 

 

_______________________________                _______________________________

 Janelle Evans, Administrator/Recorder                Clarence Sato, Chairman

 

Website Builder