Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - November 7, 1989J,y+ ~~„ v' Next Resolution No. 177 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 155 South Second Street 7 November 1989 AGENDA I. Meeting called to order II. Roll call - Garth Ellard, David Gilmour, Dick Halley, Karolyne Hugo, Jerry Mattey, Bob Matthews, Chuck Piland III. Approval of minutes IV. Correspondence and public appearances A. Discussion of correspondence from Neil Scheuneman of "The Meadows" relating to amending certain P.U.D. conditions V. Business A. Review of permitted uses in C-5 zone (barber/beauty shops) VI. Miscellaneous VII. Adjournment City of Central Point Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1989 Page 1 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairman Ellard called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Planning Commission Chairman Garth Ellard and Planning Commissioners, Dick Halley, Karolyne Hugo, David Gilmour and Chuck Piland. Absent were Jerry Mattey and Bob Matthews, Commission Chairman Ellard reported that Jerry Mattey had called him saying that he could not attend because of illness. Also present were City Administrative Assistant, George Rubaloff, Fire Chief/Building Official Mark Servatius, and Secretary Cecelia Gordon. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Halley made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting held September 5, 1989 as presented. Commissioner Piland seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Gilmour abstained (absent at that meeting) Halley, yes; Hugo, yes; Piland, yes, and the Motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC APPEARANCES City Administrative Assistant, George Rubaloff, requested that the letter from Mr. Kellogg be presented at the end of the meeting under Miscellaneous. BUSINESS There were no conflicts of interest expressed by the Planning Commissioners, City Administrative Assistant, George Rubaloff, summarized his Staff Report submitted on September 26, 1989 stating that tho proposed site would be a relocation of the. existing Crater Gym, which is now at 222 E. Pine Street in Central Point. City Administrative Assistant, George Rubaloff, invited the owner Jack Moskovita, 2115 Roberts Road, Medford, Oregon, and his building contractor, Joe Holland, 5861 Rhodes Lane, Shady Cove to come forward and present the site plan to the Commissioners. City of Central Point Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1989 Page 2 Chairman Ellard opened discussions between Jack Moskovita, his builder and the commissioners. The Commission then reviewed the site plan and stated that since there were no structural changes and that the gym would remain in the C-3 zone, that there would be no objections to the proposed relocation from the Planning Commission and recommended that Mr. Moskovita proceed to work with the City Building and Public Works Departments to obtain their building permits. Review and recommendation on a resolution regarding authorizing manicure salons as a permitted use in a C-5 zone. There were no conflicts of interest expressed by tho Commissioners on this matter. City Administrative Assistant, George Rubaloff gave a brief background on the existing zoning use limitations on businesses and services such as manicure salons in a C-5 zone, and his rationale for the proposed resolution that would recommend allowing manicure salons in a C-5 zone. Tricia Caulkins, applicant, was present in the audience. Chairman Ellard recommended that they not vote on the resolution because of the narrow concept of "manicure salon", that the Commission would consider a broader category of personal services that would be similar and compatible to existing uses in the C-5 zone. Chairman Ellard requested that City staff conduct research into the types of businesses and services that would be similar and compatible in a C-5 zone, and do an inventory on the existing services in the Central Point in the C-5 zone. Chairman Ellard requested that this report and a new (more broad) resolution be in place for the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on November 7, 1989. There was no vote on the proposed resolution authorizing manicure salons as a permitted use in a C-5 Zane. Fawn Ryan, 6353 Ventura, Central Point, a local beauty shop owner was present in the audience, and recognized by the Chair, where upon she addressed the commission as being in favor of manicure salons (and similar services) as a permitted use in the C-5 zoning. City of Central Point Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1989 Page 3 City Administrative Assistant, George Rubaloff gave some background on this proposed resolution, and invited the applicant, to come forward for a discussion with the Commission. Applicant, Sherri Colpitts, 501 Glenn Way, Central Point, briefly described her proposed business to the Planning Commission and added that she formerly owned the same type of business at the Big Y Florist & Pets, and felt it was a natural to move her business to Central Point, since most of her former patrons live in this area. Following the discussion between Sherri Colpitts and the Planning Commission, Chairman Ellard concluded that this business is similar to such permitted uses as veterinary clinics and nurseries in a C-5 zone and asked for a motion from the Commissioners. Commissioner Halley moved that the Commissioners authorize florist and pet sales as a permitted use in a C-5 Zone. Commissioner Gilmour seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Gilmour, yes; Halley, yes; Hugo, yes; Piland, yes. A11 the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion and the motion carried unanimously. MISCELLANEOUS George Rubaloff, City Administrative Assistant, handed each member of the Commission a letter from Dan Kellogg of Fabtech Supply and Fabrication, (presently the owner of Kitchen and Bath Center of Central Point). The letter dated October 3, from Mr. Kellogg. states that he has been designated by DuPont as the "Corian" distributor in Southern Oregon. Since the new distributorship would require more space, Mr. Kellogg was considering the masonry building at 25 Manzanita Street for the stocking and custom cutting of this material. Mr. Rubaloff also handed out a staff report from Mark Servatius, Central Point Fire Chief/Building Official stating that the building at that location was more than adequate for the proposed use based on Structural as well as Fire and Life Safety aspects, and that there was ample paved, off-street parking. City of Central Point Planning Commission Meeting October 3, 1989 - 7:00 p.m. Page 4 Dan Kellogg, 1608 Lenora, Medford, Oregon was in the audience and was invited to participate in a discussion with the Commissioners regarding moving the Corian business into the above mentioned address. Mr. Kellogg handed around a sample of the material, whereupon, Commissioner Gilmour stated that he was familiar with the product and that some had been installed in his home. Mr. Kellogg assured the Commission that the product "Corian" was non- toxic, non flammable, safe to work around and caused a minimum of dust. Mr. Kellogg also explained that the tools used to cut the material and related noise level would be similar to that of a glass shop. Commissioner Piland stated that he would abstain from participating in the discussion or voting since he had a conflict of interest. Chairman Ellard asked for a Motion. Commissioner Halley moved that the Planning Commission determine that Mr. Kellogg's proposed "Corian" business at the 25 Manzanita location be clarified as a similar and compatible use with established businesses in the C-5 zone. Commissioner Hugo seconded the Motion. Ro11 call vote: Gilmour, yes; Halley, yes; Hugo, yes; Piland, abstaining. The motion was carried. Restricted On Street Parkins - Brite Spot Cafe City Administrative Assistant, George Rubaloff introduced Rosemary Francis, 2704 Connell, Medford, Oregon, owner of the Brite Spot Cafe. Rosemary Francis addressed the Commission concerning the lack of parking in front of her cafe due to the curbs recently being. painted yellow. Chairman Ellard said that the Planning Commission is not involved in this matter, and referred her to the City Public Works Director, Larry R. Blanchard. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Halley moved that the meeting be adjourned. Commissioner Piland second the motion. Roll call vote: Gilmour, yes;, Halley, yes; Hugo, yes; Piland, yes;. All the Commissioners voted in favor of the Motion and the Motion carried. Chairman Ellard adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. The Meadows • a residential community of manufactured homes November 2, 1989 George Rubaloff Administrative Assistant City of Central Point Central Point, OR 97502 Dear George, Re: The Meadows Section D of 17.68.070 (PUD ordinance) states "amend- ments to a completed PUD may be approved, if appropriate, due to changes in conditions since the final development plan was approved...". As we have previously discussed, at least i:an of the residents are interested in having a "weather cover" over the front entry step to theirs homes. When I first started selling homes in the Meadows, no one recognized the need for entry covers because many of our floor plans had recessed entries into the homes. I have since changed manufacturers and many of our buyers preferred the extra space inside of the home rather than a recessed entry. Obviously, the need for a covered entry is not evident until apt starts to rain. When the Meadows was originally approved, it was approved for either carports or garages. In trying to uphold higher standards, garages have become the norm. Obviously, if we had a 12 foot wide carport rather than a 20 foot wide garage, there would be plenty of room on the side to have entry covers, acid still allow the prcpEr side set backs. After the park was originally approved and especially within the last th.rse to five years, the mobile home industry has changdd from a 24 foot wide home to a 28 foot wide home. Thus, the Meadows inherited quite a few narrow lots which compounds the problem of side set backs. Once again, extra width was lost due to these changes in conditions. I realize that a smaller side set back creates a slightly more hazardous fire potential. However, the PUD ordinance allows for unique conditions for the benefit of the PUD. It also allows for a density bonus in dwellings which would have up to twenty-five units per acre and obviously a zero lot line or "common-wall" situation. • 555 freeman rd. central point, or 97502 (503) 664-6656 • toll free (1-800) 678-6656 (2) I would like to apply for an amendment to allow entry covers to extend into the side yard set back within one foot of the property line. Should this be done as a vaniance, or what? I feel that because of these three changes in conditions since the final development plan was approved, it would be appropriate to allow entry covers on our homes. Would you bring this issue up to the appropriate bodies and see if they concur? Sincer y, r._ c Ne'l -heuneman, President 5 in 1 Development Co.,Inc. NS/shs *** S T A F F R E P O R T *** Date: 11/2/89 To: Planning Commission From: Mark Servatius Fire Chief/Building Official Subject: The Meadows (covered porches) It has come to my attention that Mr. Neil Scheuneman has requested a variance from the required side yard setbacks to allow the property owners to construct covered porch additions to existing manufactured homes, within The Meadows PUD. Currently the PUD standards for side yard setback is 5 feet. Mr. Scheuneman is requesting a variance to permit construction within 1 foot of the side property line. From a Fire & Life Safety perspective to limit and control the potential spread of fire my, recommendation would be the following: 1. If the planning commission's decision would be to permit construction within 1 foot of a property line then that construction is also required to include a 1-hour fire rated assembly for the entire width of the structure. This would be in the form of a 1-hour rated fire wall constructed from the ground to a point a minimum of 30" above and in line with the roof sheathing. 2. In lieu of the fire rated assembly the maximum distance to a property line for unprotected construction is 3 feet. This rationale is based on the 1985 Edition of the Uniform Building Code requirements for residential-occupancies, which the City of Central Point has adopted. (SEE DIAGRAMS ATTACHED) Z e 0 n ,~ -~. ~' ~. ~, I~ ~ 7" U, rn iN ` r ~ ~ ~~ N a ~ i ~ ~ i rJ l' I~y Z• fi A '~ ~~ z~ A R ~: m X N z'~ ~~ ,. tt 0 T i H W Z' m 1 -- S T A F F R E PORT - - T0: Planning Commission FROM: George Rubaloff dministrative Assistant RE: Review of Permitted Uses in the C-5 Zone DATE: 26 October 1989 ISSUE Should barber and beauty shops be a permitted use in the City's Thoroughfare Commercial C-5 District? BACKGROUND During the October 3, 1989 Planning Commission meeting, staff requested the Com- mission to deliberate on the question of whether or not a manicurist shop would be a permitted use in the C-5 zone. Recognizing that a manicurist shop typically falls under the broader category of beauty salon, the Planning Commission request- ed staff to study the particular use within its broader context as it relates to similar and compatible C-5 uses. According to the City's zoning title, beauty salon and barber shops are a permit- ted personal service use in each of the commercial zones (C-1 through C-4) except the C-5 zone. Two beauty salons currently exist in the C-5 zone. One of those establishments is a pre-existing use; the other beauty salon emerged as a non- conforming use in early 1989 and was discovered by staff in the latter part of 1989. DISCUSSION The City's Comprehensive Plan describes the C-5 zone as providing for a mixture of mostly automobile related commercial activities, many of which are related to the light industrial areas across the highway to the west. Section 17.46.010 of the City's zoning code states that the C-5 (thoroughfare commercial) provides for commercial and business uses that are most appropriately located along or near major highways or thoroughfares and are largely dependent upon highway visibility and easy vehicular access. While the Comprehensive Plan language ties the C-5 commercial zone to its industrial counterpart along Front Street, a beauty salon is clearly a commercial use and appears to meet the general intent of the C-5 zone provided in the Municipal Code. The following are key phrases in the 'intent' language of those particular zoning code sections which permit the barber shop/beauty salon use: C-1 convenient shopping center to serve adjacent neighborhoods C-2 convenient location for low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with and service needs of surrounding neighborhoods STRP1026.89/ADMINl ,, ~,~ , , C-3 pedestrian oriented commercial environment C-4 tourist-commercial to serve local residents and traveling public Though there are some distinct differences between these commercial zones and their C-5 cousin, a resolution of this issue should go beyond the general purpose language which apply to these commercial. zones. C-5 uses other than as provided in Central Point Municipal Code 17.46.20 (F) are permitted if the Planning Commis- sion finds them to be similar and compatible to other permitted uses and within the intent of the C-5 zone. The Webster dictionary defines similar as 'having characteristics in common; alike in substance or essentials'; and compatible is defined as 'capable of existing or operating together in harmony'. Therefore, the research questions are: (1) Do beauty salons have characteristics common with all uses in the C-5 zone? and; (2) Are beauty salons and all permitted C-5 uses capable of existing and operating in harmony? As noted above, barber shops/beauty salons are permitted in C-1 through C-4 zones. Thus it follows that other permitted uses in those zones are declared similar and compatible with the use in question; and that after due considera- tion, certain conditional uses could potentially be allowed in the proximity of a barber and beauty shop within a C-1, C-2, C-3, or C-4 zone. Upon comparing these uses in C-1 through C-4 with those in the C-5 zone, the following C-5 uses were found to be unique to the C-5 zone: (1) Ambulance/emergency services (2) Feed, seed, and fuel (within enclosed structure) (3) Stone, tile, and masonary supplies (4) Nursery and gardening materials and supplies (5) Recreational vehicle storage lots (6) Manufacturing for on-premises sales (conditional use) FINDINGS (1) While barber shop/beauty shop use appears to meet the general intent of the C-5 zone, the general intent of those commercial zones where barber/beauty shop use is permitted and the C-5 zone diverge particularly in the way the zones are used by consumers. (2) Trusting the logic of the zoning ordinance, it follows that barber shops and beauty salons were not intended to be permitted in the C-5 zone as the zoning ordinance is currently structured because such use would not be similar and com- patible in all possible instances. The reverse approach would be to allow barber shops and beauty salons in the C-5 zone and remove the six uses noted above. ALTERNATIVES (1) Take no action which would in effect be a determination that barber or beau- ty shops should not be a permitted use in the C-5 zone (2) Initiate a process to amend the text of the zoning ordinance which would allow barber and beauty shops within the C-5 zone. For example, barber and beau- ty shops could be permitted if sheltered. within a shopping center; or the use could be sanctioned one block out from Pine Street; or, certain C-5 uses consid- STRP1026.89/ADMINI ,., , ered to be incompatible with barber/beauty shops could be removed from the cur- rent zoning text. (3) Determine that barber and beauty shops are a similar and compatible use and request that staff prepare a resolution for the next meeting. ATTACHMENT Map illustrating all commercial zones GR:dlf STRP1026.89/ADMINI ,, COMMERCIAL ZONES 10/30/89 C-1 C-2 C-3