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

October 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, Murphy, Curtiss, Weigel, Emory and
     Butler.

COMMISSION ABSENT:         Commissioner Hill was excused.

STAFF PRESENT:                  Administrator/Recorder Janelle Evans and Deputy
     Recorder Joan Beckman.

STAFF ABSENT:                    Superintendent Tony Lakey was excused.

 

III.         Agenda Review/Additions:

          None

 

IV.          Approval of Minutes –
1.      Regular Session 4-7-11

Commissioner Weigel moved, Commissioner Curtiss seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the 4-7-11 meeting as written.  All voted “yes”.  The motion carried.

 

V.           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 Application – Nelson Brinkerhoff, 205 Brinkerhoff Dr., Canyonville, OR - Twp. 30, Rng. 05, Section 27, TL# 00202

 

*    Chairman Sato opened the Public Hearing for the Lot Line Adjustment
 Application.

 

*    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 read the hearing disclosure statement.

 

*    Chairman Sato called for the staff report:

       1. Administrator/Recorder Evans noted that the applicant was out of town and unavailable for questions.  She further noted that Ray Brown assisted Mr. Brinkerhoff with the application for the lot line adjustment, was not able to attend the meeting but could be called if the Planning Commission had any questions that Administrator/Recorder Evans was unable to answer.  Administrator/Recorder Evans highlighted the staff report for the lot line adjustment:

                      

*     REQUEST: 

                         The applicants are requesting approval of a lot line adjustment between 205
  Brinkerhoff Dr. and 575 Hamlin Dr.  The proposed adjustment would allow the
  addition of approximately .33 acres of land to the property at 575 Hamlin Dr.
  (Mr. Yokoyama)

 

*    DECISION CRITERIA AND FINDINGS: 

 

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 205 Brinkerhoff (T30 R05 S27 Tax lot 202) and 575 Hamlin Dr. (T30 R05 S27BD Tax Lot 5600).  Tax Lot 202 is approximately 19.30 acres in size with a single family dwelling located at the northeast corner of the lot.  Tax lot 5600 is .50 acres in size and developed with a single family dwelling.

 

1b. Mr. Yokoyama is purchasing bare land from Mr. Brinkerhoff by means of a property line adjustment.  The proposed adjustment will move Mr. Yokoyama’s north property line 100’ feet to the north adding approximately .33 acres to his existing property.

 

1c.  Canyonville Municipal Code 17.24.022 (3) provides for the administrative approval of lot line adjustments that move the lot line no more than 10 feet.  Lot lines that adjust the property line in excess of 10 feet must be approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant’s proposal moves the lot line 100 feet to the north.

 

 

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. Both dwellings are already served with utilities and the addition of .33 acres of land to Mr. Yokoyama’s property will not require the installation of any new utilities.

 

 

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

 

FINDINGS:

 

3a. Both properties are currently served by developed streets. The adjustment of the north property line by 100 feet will have no effect on the ingress or egress for either property.

           

 

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 Mr. Brinkerhoff’s property to approximately 18.97 acres and increases the size of Mr. Yokoyama’s property to approximately .83 acres in size.  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 minimum lot size for the Single Family Residential (R1) zone is 7,500
 square feet. Mr. Brinkerhoff’s property will be approximately 18.97 acres
 after the proposed adjustment and Mr. Yokoyama’s property will be .83
 acres.  Both lots will exceed the minimum lot size requirement.

 

5b. The structures on Mr. Brinkerhoff’s property are all located in the north east
  portion of the property which is not even close to the proposed adjustment.
  Adding additional square footage to Mr. Yokoyama’s property will increase
  the distance between the structures and north property line.

 

5c.  Both lots will conform to the minimum lot size, building set-backs and lot
  dimensions established for lots within the Single Family Residential (R1)
  zone.

 

 

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

 

FINDINGS:

 

6a. Both properties are zoned single family/residential (R1).

 

 

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

 

FINDINGS:

           

7a. Adjusting the north property line a distance of 100’ for Mr. Yokoyama will not
  impact any easements or right of ways. 

 

 

*    FINAL DECISION:

 

Approve the lot line adjustment adding .33 acres to 575 Hamlin Dr. by moving the north lot line 100’ north and reducing the acreage for 205 Brinkerhoff Dr. by .33 acres.  

 

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

      There were none.

 

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

      There were none.

 

*    Chairman Sato closed the Public Hearing.

 

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

      There were none.   

 

Commissioner Emory moved, Commissioner Butler seconded a motion to adopt the findings and conditions in the staff report and approve the lot line adjustment.  All voted “yes”.  The Motion carried.   

 

VI.         Business from the Public:

              None

 

VII.        Other Commission Business:

1.      Chickens within the City Limits / Memo, Administrator/Recorder Evans

Administrator/Recorder Evans noted that the Council directed her to bring Chapter 8.04.020 to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation regarding “Keeping of Certain Animals and Poultry”.  She further noted that Buddy Kovachy had requested to have the Ordinance amended.  Mr. Kovachy was present at the meeting as a private citizen and wished to address the Planning Commission regarding his request.

 

Mr. Kovachy circulated a letter he had written to the Planning Commission along with photos.  Mr. Kovachy noted that he’s had chickens and turkeys for many years, that he had been considerate of his neighbors and has never had any complaints from any of his neighbors.  Mr. Kovachy further expressed that he was able to comply with the City’s Code with the exception of section B. 3. which has a 200’ limitation between any building (excepting that of the owner) and where chickens are kept.

 

Discussion:  The Commission discussed the keeping of certain animals and poultry in length.  They further generally discussed regulating the number of chickens, differentiating between baby chicks and mature chickens, limiting the amount of roosters allowed, at what point keeping chickens might become a nuisance or health issue and considering different requirements for different lot sizes.  It was also noted that given the current economy more and more citizens will want to raise chickens and appropriate restrictions should be in place. 

 

Administrator/Recorder Evans provided the following information for the Commissioners to review:

 

N/A is not addressed

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

City

# allowed / lot size in square feet

roosters

 

distance requirement

 

 

limits

 

 

 

 

Myrtle Creek

N/A

N/A

N/A

cannot run at large

 

Dundee

6

0

10' from property line

enclosed coop and run

Milton-Freewater

4

0

100' from property line

 

Silverton

3

0

meet normal setbacks

 

Cascade Locks

not allowed

 

Forest Grove

4

0

20' from all residences

 

Lincoln City

5

none

 

Harrisburg

5

0

25' from a dwelling

 

Springfield

4

0

none

 

Creswell

1-3 / lot 5,000 sf

 

 

4-6 / lot 10,000 sf

0

not permitted in multi family

Dallas

not allowed

 

Hillsboro

3 / lot 10,000 sf

 

 

6 / lot over 10,000 sf

15' from property line

 

Hubbard

4 / lot 5,000 sf

 

 

5 / lot 7,000 sf

 

 

6 / lot 10,000 sf

20' from neighboring residences

 

Scappoose

N/A

kept in sanitary manner

Gold Beach

not allowed

 

Newberg

not allowed

 

Woodburn

3

0

none

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Commission discussed the information provided.  It was the consensus of the Planning Commission that Canyonville’s Ordinance with regard to the distance requirement was too restrictive.

 

Commissioner Murphy moved, Commissioner Weigel seconded a motion to recommend a 50’ (fifty foot) limitation between the premises on which poultry may be kept and any dwelling excepting that of the owner.  All voted “yes”.  The motion carried.

  

VIII.      Correspondence:

None

 

IX.         Announcements:

              1.   City Council – Monday, October 17, 2011 @ 7:00 p.m.

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

 

X.           Adjourn:

                  Being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:10 p.m.

 

SUBMITTED BY:                                                         APPROVED BY:

 

 

_______________________________                  _____________________________

 Joan Beckman, Deputy Recorder                             Clarence Sato, Chairman

 

Website Builder