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

June 11, 2014

 

I.                          Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance:

Commissioner Emory called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and all joined in the Pledge of Allegiance.

 

II.              Roll Call:

COMMISSION PRESENT:    Chairman Emory, Commissioners Boye, Ravera, Sales, Weigel and Butler

COMMISSION ABSENT:      Commissioner Hill was absent.

STAFF PRESENT:                 Administrator/Recorder Evans

STAFF ABSENT:                   None.

 

IV.             Agenda Review/Additions:

            None

 

V.              Approval of Minutes –

1.     Regular Session/ 4-9-14

Commissioner Weigel moved, Commissioner Sales  seconded a motion to approve the minutes of the 4-9-14 Regular Session meeting as written.  All voted “yes”.  The motion carried.

 

VI.             Public Hearings:

1.   Variance to off street parking requirements and setbacks for Canyonville Christian Academy, 135 Canyon Street, Canyonville.

 

*    Chairman Emory asked if any Commissioner wished to disqualify his or herself for any

      conflict of interest in this matter or report any ex-parte contacts.

           

 Commissioner Sales noted that his daughter attends the academy and Commissioner Boye noted that the academy trades with their business.

 

*    Chairman Emory opened the Public Hearing on the variance for Canyonville Christian Academy.    

 

*    Chairman Emory called for the staff report:

      1.   Administrator/Recorder Evans read the hearings disclosure statement.

2.   Administrator/Recorder Evans referenced the following Staff Report:

 

REQUEST:

                       

The applicant wishes to construct a two story dorm which will house 27 students, 1 full time dean and 1 part time dean on the subject property.  As a part of their development they are requesting a variance to the following City development standards:

 

OFF STREET PARKING:

 

Section 18.76.100 of the Canyonville Municipal Code requires 2 off street parking spaces for each room.  According to the floor plan submitted by the applicant there will be a total of 13 rooms, 1 three bedroom apartment for the dean and a one bedroom apartment for the assistant dean.  A total of 30 parking spaces would be required for the development. The applicant is proposing to construct only 4 spaces which would be sufficient for the full time dean and the part time dean. According to the applicant the students that attend Canyonville Christian Academy do not have vehicles. 

 

SETBACK REQUIREMENTS:  Section 18.28.060 establishes the distance a structure must be set back from the property line.  The setback for the front is a minimum of 15’ for one story buildings and a minimum of 25’ for two story structures.  For corner lots the side set back adjacent to a street is 25’.  The applicant is requesting approval of a variance to construct the building within 13’ of the property line along Canyon Street and 16’ feet along 2nd Street.

 

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.

 

DECISION CRITERIA #1 Unique circumstances, such as lot size, shape or topography, apply to the property which do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone or vicinity.

 

1a.       The subject property was rezoned in 2007 from Single Family Residential to Multi Family Residential.  At the time of the rezone the applicant intended to construct a dormitory that would house 25 students.

 

According to the land use file the adjacent property owner Lillian Stevenson submitted a letter expressing concern about how close the actual dorm would be to her property.  It was important to her to maintain as much distance as possible to mitigate the potential noise impacts.

 

1b.       The plot plan submitted by the applicant indicates the building would be located 13’ from the property line adjacent to Canyon Street and 16’ from the property line adjacent to 2nd street.  The two bump out areas which encroach into the setback are architectural features for the entry.  The dorm is a two story structure.

 

1c.       The R3 multi family residential zones establishes the following setbacks.

 

Front setback:  shall be a minimum of 15’ for one story buildings and a minimum of 25’ for two story buildings.

 

Side setback:  shall be a minimum of 5’ except the setback shall be a minimum of 15’ where the lot abuts an R1 zone, and shall be a minimum of 25’ where the lot abuts a street.

 

1d.       The building faces Canyon Street which would make the section on Canyon Street subject to the front setback and the portion along 2nd Street would be subject to the side yard setback.

 

1e.       The applicant states the property is located at a transition between commercial and residential properties with commercial development to the west and residential to the east.  With commercial zoning requiring no setback and residential zoning requiring a 25’ setback the proposed setback variance could provide a transition between the 2 zones.

 

1f.        A 15 foot setback along the street side is standard in the other residential zones; unless they front an arterial Street, which then requires 25 feet.  Reduction of the street side setback to 15’ would be uniform with the setback requirements for other residential zones.

 

1g.       There is sufficient room for the applicant to move the building 2’ to the east to maintain a 15’ setback off of Canyon Street.  The 15’ front yard setback would comply with the setback established for a 1 story building in the R3 zone.

 

1h.       Section 18.76.100 of the Municipal Code establishes the required number of off street parking spaces.  Two off street parking spaces are required for each dwelling unit.  Based on the submitted floor plan the dorm would require 30 parking spaces.

           

1i.        The applicant is seeking a variance to the required off street parking spaces based on the fact that the students don’t have vehicles.  The majority of the students are international students and don’t have cars.  They are proposing to provide a total of 4 spaces which would provide parking for the two apartments.

 

1j.        The proposed 4 parking spaces would be adequate for the two apartments if one was not a handicap spot.  The handicap space will not be able to be utilized for regular parking.

 

CONDITION:

 

1.         The applicant must move the building 2 feet on the Canyon Street side to comply with a minimum setback of 15’ in the front.           

 

DECISION CRITERIA #2 The variance is necessary in order to allow the applicant to use the property in a manner consistent with the intent of the zoning district within which the property is located.

 

2a.       The multifamily residential zone requires a 25’ setback along Canyon Street and 2nd Street.  Compliance with the required setback would provide more of a buffer between the commercial areas and less buffer for the residential area located to the east.

 

2b.       In order to comply with the required 25’ setback, the applicant would need to reorient the dorm to an east west position vs the proposed north south position.  The positioning of the building in the east west position would bring the structure to within 20’ of the residential property to the east.  The proposed north south orientation of the building provides a 62’ buffer for the residential area.

 

2c.       The parking needs for a dorm are not the same as those necessary for a mult family structure where the average person has between 1 and 2 vehicles.  However, the zoning ordinance does not differentiate between the different types of multi family uses.  It establishes the same parking demand for any type of multi family use.

 

2d.       There is sufficient room for the applicant to provide 4 regular parking spaces plus the required handicap space.

 

CONDITION:

 

1.         The applicant must provide a minimum of 5 parking spaces including the handicap space.

 

DECISION CRITERIA #3 The variance will conform with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Ordinance and will not be materially detrimental to other people or property in the vicinity.

 

3a.       Based on the language for setbacks in the R3 zone it is clear that the intent was to provide a greater setback between a single family residential area and a multi family area.  The R3 Multifamily zone specifically states:

 

The side setback shall be a 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.

           

3b.       Given the location of the commercial zone being along Canyon Street and the residential zone being adjacent to the rear yard, it makes more sense to reduce the front yard setback and provide a larger buffer area for the single family residences. Strict adherence to the front and side setbacks would be more detrimental to the residential area.

 

3c.       The Canyonville Christian Academy has been in existence since 1924 and expanded over the years.  Based on the Academy’s previous history over the years it is a known fact that the students do not have vehicles.  They currently have 3 dorms and none of them have off street parking facilities.  The lack of parking for the dorms has not caused any parking issues.

 

3d.       Notices were sent to the affected property owners on May 21, 2014 advising them of the requested variances.  The City has received no responses.

 

DECISION CRITERIA #4 The variance being requested is the minimum variance necessary in order to allow reasonable use of the property consistent with its zoning.

 

4a.       The subject property is a 100’x 125’ lot which is a small lot for a multifamily residence. Since it is a corner lot the additional 10’ setback on two sides of the lot reduces the amount of buildable space considerably.

 

4b.       The requested variance on the Canyon Street to within 13’ is not the minimum variance necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. A 15’ setback would conform to the minimum setback requirements for the single family residence and allow the applicant to position the building in a north south direction on the lot.  There is no justification for not meeting the 15’ setback on Canyon Street.

 

4c.       It is reasonable to expect that the deans will have vehicles since they will actually live at the dorm.  Therefore, providing adequate parking for them is a necessity.  Four non handicap spaces would be adequate to meet their needs and complies with the City’s requirement of 2 spaces per dwelling unit.

 

DECISION CRITERIA #5 The need for the variance is not a consequence of improper actions by the property owner, nor otherwise the result of a self created hardship.

 

FINDINGS:

 

5a.       Canyonville  Christian Academy is located in the downtown area of Canyonville which limits their ability to expand.  The subject property is one of the few residential lots in the area near their campus. There are no large residential lots in the area.

 

5b.       The need for the variance is directly related to the specific use of the property and the fact that the students don’t have vehicles.

 

5c.       Approval of the requested setback variances does not constitute approval of the building plans and conformance to the State Building and Fire Codes. The applicant’s engineer has been advised there could be a potential fire code issue with the location of the outside stairs.  This will be determined when the building plans are reviewed.

 

CONDITION:

 

1.         If the building or fire code regulations require the relocation of the building the applicant will either need to comply with the required setbacks for the zone or apply for a new variance. 

 

 

FINAL DECISION:

 

Approve the variance to reduce the setback adjacent to the streets subject to the conditions listed in the staff report.  A variance is approved to reduce the setback adjacent to the streets to 15’ and to reduce the number of off street parking spaces to 5 including the handicap space. 

 

*  Chairman Emory asked if there was anyone wishing to testify either in favor or opposed to the application.

 

Chairman Emory expressed his concern regarding the outside stairway.  He is concerned that it is too close to the property line and could pose a hazard in the case of a fire.  With the rock wall there it could become congested.

 

The applicant’s engineer Scott Harvey stated they had read the staff report and were in agreement with the conditions.  They are not sure there will be a fire code issue with the stairs since the block wall will be removed.  However, if there is they can flip the stair the other direction.

 

Eric Payne, CCA handed out a new site plan which showed the 5 required parking spaces and the required 15’ setback off of Canyon St.

 

Administrator Evans addressed both Eric Payne and Cathy Lovato and reminded them that there would be system development charges on the property.  They acknowledged they are aware of the system development charges.

 

 

*There was no additional testimony so Chairman Emory closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Sales moved, Commissioner Butler seconded a motion to adopt the findings and conditions in the staff report and approve the variance application.  All voted yes.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

 

2.         Conditional Use Permit to establish assisted living at 475 Alder for Susan Lebengood.

 

*    Chairman Emory asked if any Commissioner wished to disqualify his or herself for any

      conflict of interest in this matter or report any ex-parte contacts. 

           

                   There were none.

 

*    Chairman Emory opened the Public Hearing on the conditional use permit to establish an assisted living facility at 475 Alder.

 

*    Chairman Emory called for the staff report:

      1.   Administrator/Recorder Evans read the hearings disclosure statement.

2.   Administrator/Recorder Evans referenced the following Staff Report:

 

Nature of Request:

 

The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to convert the existing church into an assisted living facility.  According to the applicant they would like to create 15 studio apartments for the elderly.  Each apartment would contain an individual bathroom but no cooking facilities.  There is a large kitchen already within the structure that would provide dining for the residents.  With the exception of possibly adding more windows there would be very little visible change to the exterior of the existing building.

 

The facility would be staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week with visiting hours between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m.

 

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.       The subject property is approximately 2.73 acres in size and already developed with a Church and parking lot which contains 95 spaces.

 

1b.       The subject property is zoned R1 Single Family Residential.  Uses permitted in the R1 zone are single family residential and residential homes under 5 people.  Conditionally permitted uses are boarding houses, schools, parks and public utilities.

 

1c.       According to the applicant, they would like to convert the existing church into an assisted living facility.  The Church would be remodeled to create 15 studio apartments.  Each apartment would have it’s own bathroom and living area but no kitchens.  Meals would be prepared for the residents in the existing kitchen.

 

1d.       The Canyonville Municipal Code does not specifically address assisted living facilities.  Based on the applicant’s description of the use it will be similar to a boarding house which is allowed conditionally.   A boarding house is defined as a building other than a hotel, where lodging and/or meals for five or more persons but not more than 20 persons, are provided for compensation and without individual cooking facilities.

 

1e.       Section 18.76.100 of the Canyonville Municipal Code regulates the number of off street parking spaces required.  The demand for residential facilities is established at one space per employee, including owner, on the larges shift plus resident and visitor parking as determined by the Planning Commission based on anticipated demand.

 

1f.        The applicant states there will be approximately 14 staff members and 13 residents. The anticipated parking demand for the assisted living facility would be less than the previous demand for the church.  The existing 93 usable parking spaces will more than adequately accommodate the proposed use.

 

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 church was constructed in 1980 and has peacefully co existed with the surrounding properties for many years.  An assisted living facility would integrate nicely with the surrounding properties and have less of an impact on the area than the Church.

 

2b.       According to the applicant there would be little change to the outside of the building.  With the interior remodel to studio apartments, some windows may need to be added to the building.

 

2c.       The applicant states that the facility will be staffed 24 hours a day and the visitor hours will be between 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.  Noise generated from the facility would be limited to vehicular traffic.

 

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

 

3a.       The property is already served by public facilities.  The parking and street access is adequate for an assisted living facility.  However, the use of the facility for assisted living will increase the demand on the water and sewer.

 

3b.       The current building is serviced by a 1” water meter.  The adequacy of the 1” meter to serve the proposed use will need to be reviewed at the time building plans are submitted.  If a larger meter is required the applicant will  need to pay the systems development charge on a larger meter.

 

3c.       The assisted living facility will place a higher demand on the sewer system than the Church.

According to the City’s systems development ordinance a use which intensifies the demands on the existing sewer system is subject to the new system development charges.  All systems development charges must be paid prior to obtaining a building permit.

 

RECOMMENDATION:

 

Approve the conditional use permit to convert the existing dwelling into an assisted living facility.

 

*Commissioner Emory asked if there was any one wishing to testify either in favor or opposed to the application.

 

Vern Kurisu, 510 Alder addressed the commission.  He stated they were in favor of the conditional use permit but had a few concerns they would like addressed.  The existing exterior lighting shines directly into their house and they would like to have a shield installed so it will not illuminate their property.  He also expressed concern about the parking lot lighting and whether it would shine unto their property.  The lighting has never been on since they moved there.

 

There was general discussion with the applicants regarding purchasing shields that would direct all the lighting downward.  The applicants were in agreement that they would make sure the lighting was not a nuisance to the neighbors.

 

*There was no other testimony and Commissioner Emory closed the public hearing.

 

The Planning Commission drafted finding 2d to be added to the staff report and a condition regarding the exterior lighting.

 

Finding 2d.  Vern Kurisu spoke regarding the exterior lighting for the property.  The existing lighting on the building shines directly into his house and he was concerned that the parking lot lights would also illuminate his property.  He requested that all the lighting have shields so that they do not illuminate beyond the property line.

 

Condition:  All exterior lighting must be shielded to prevent the illumination of property beyond the applicants property line.

 

*There was no additional testimony so Commissioner Emory closed the public hearing.

 

Commissioner Henry moved, Commissioner Ravera seconded a motion to adopt the findings in the staff report with the addition of finding 2d and the condition that the exterior lighting does not illuminate past the property line.  All voted yes.  Motion passed unanimously.

             

VII.            Business from the Public:

                  None

 

VIII.          Other Commission Business:

 

                  none

IX.             Correspondence:

None

 

X.              Announcements:

1.      City Council –Monday June 16, 2014@ 7:00 pm

2.      Planning – Wednesday, July 9, 2014@ 7:00 pm

 

XI.             Adjourn:

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

 

 

SUBMITTED BY:                                                                               APPROVED BY:

 

 

_____________________________                                                        _________________________

Janelle Evans, Administrator/Recorder                                               John Emory, Chairman

 

Website Builder