Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes - February 21, 1995 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1995 - Page One I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL: Those present were: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Herb Farber, Candy Fish, Karolyne Johnson and Valerie Rapp. Randy Graves did not attend. III. CORRESPONDENCE: NONE. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Staff noted that the inclusion showing Jan Dunlap's "abstain" in voting on Resolution #314 would be removed for the record, as Commissioner Dunlap was not at the February 7th, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Fish moved that they approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes as corrected, Commissioner Farber seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap, abstain; Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Johnson, yes, and Rapp, yes, and the Minutes were approved. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None Vl. BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARING -REVIEW AND DETERMINATION REGARDING A SITE PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON EAST PINE STREET (APPLICANT: TOM MALOT CONSTRUCTION). Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing. George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator, reviewed the Planning Department's Notice of Public Hearing dated February 1 , 1995, covering the Nature of Hearings, Criteria for Decision, Public Comments,(and that no Public Comments were received previous to the Meeting) and Summary of Procedure. There were no declarations of conflict of interest or ex-parte communication. Commissioner Fish asked stated that she was located in the close proximity only, with no profit or gain involved from this land use decision. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1995 - Page One I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Those present were: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Herb Farber, Candy Fish, Karolyne Johnson and Valerie Rapp. Randy Graves did not attend. III. CORRESPONDENCE: NONE. IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Staff noted that the inclusion showing Jan Dunlap's "abstain" in voting on Resolution #314 would be removed for the record, as Commissioner Dunlap was not at the February 7th, 1995 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Fish moved that they approve the Planning Commission Minutes of February 7, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes as corrected, Commissioner Farber seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap, abstain; Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Johnson, yes, and Rapp, yes, and the Minutes were approved. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None VI. BUSINESS A. PUBLIC HEARING -REVIEW AND DETERMINATION REGARDING A SITE PLAN FOR A COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON EAST PINE STREET (APPLICANT: TOM MALOT CONSTRUCTION). Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing. George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator, reviewed the Planning Department's Notice of Public Hearing dated February 1, 1995, covering the Nature of Hearings, Criteria for Decision, Public Comments,(and that no Public Comments were received previous to the Meeting) and Summary of Procedure. There were no declarations of conflict of interest or ex-parte communication. Commissioner Fish asked stated that she was located in the close proximity 0 only, with no profit or gain involved from this land use decision. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1995 - Page Two ' George Rubaloff, reviewed his Memorandum of February 15, 1995, including the Preface, Background, Land Use History, Zoning Review, and Discussion Issue , then entered the following into the record by reference: The Notice of Public Hearing, Mailing list for Notice, 100 Ft. Radius, Assorted Maps, Application, Public Works Department Review, dated January 27, 1995, Public Safety Department Review dated February 1, 1995 and assorted materials related to Street Access (Circulation/Transportation Policy No. 11, Hierarchy of Streets, CPMC 17.72.040 B, and December 5, 1994 letter to �pplicant). Paul Worth, Public Works Technician stated that staff had met with Tommy Malot today and discussed Pine Street traffic access, Public Works Standards for paving the alleyway, (same as for flag lot) and the street lighting requirements. Paul also stated Mr. Malot had agreed to eliminate the signs in the Right-of-Way. Tommy Malot, 50 Manzanita Street, Central Point, Oregon, (Applicant) came forward in support of the application. Mr. Malot stated that he and his family had been in the real estate and construction business in Central Point for some number of years. He stated that as their business has expanded they need a 1 new office building. Mr. Malot referred to the site plan and stated he was proposing building an attractive, easy to access office, across the street from the Central Point Post Office. He also stated that the proposed project would represent the Malot good taste and quality building that they show in their homes and other construction. He stated that he felt that there should be a few parking spaces on the site in front, for first time customers. This would include four spaces and a space for disabled parking. Commissioner Johnson agreed that visibility and accessibility was very necessary, especially for a newly located business. Commissioner Fish stated that once customers are aware of the parking area in the rear of the business,( accessed through the alley) those customers prefer to use the rear parking area. Chairman Piland asked if the Developer was aware of the requirement for placing of a street light? Tommy Malot stated that there was not a power supply for a street light in front of the proposed building, and that bringing a power line from the nearest source would require an easement along the side of the site property, which would hamper the future placement of structures, should the develop obtain additional property on that block. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1995 - Page Three Some of the Commissioners were concerned about direct access on and off E. Pine Street from the proposed front parking area on the Site Plan. George Rubaloff referred to CPMC 17.72.0406 which gives discretion to the Commission in determining ingress and egress points so that those accesses do not interfere with traffic on public streets. Commissioner Dunlap stated that she was concerned about setting a precedent. George Rubaloff stated the Planning Commission should base their decision on the uniqueness of each particular case and proposed land uses. The access points for one type of use may not interfere with traffic flow to the degree that another would, using the example of an office compared to a restaurant. Tommy Malot stated that all the street lights along that portion of E. Pine were located across the street from the his proposed site. Tommy Malot also stated that in order to bring power to his side of the street, that the electric lines would have to be strung overhead across E. Pine or that they would have to bore under the street. Commission Farber suggested that the most appropriate place for a street light would be across the street on the right of way in front of the Post Office. George Rubaloff stated that whatever the Planning Commission decided on this case a particularly related to the access, the decision should be substantiated by a rationale which is unique to this proposal. In general, direct access to individual properties from major arterials such as Pine Street are discouraged in the City's Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Commission has decided to allow the right-turn-only access onto Pine Street for this project for the following reasons: (a) The property presently has an access onto Pine Street. (b) The project is sited on an interior lot that has no direct side street access. Access to the side streets are through an alley. (c) Access to two-thirds of the project's off-street parking will come from the back alley via side streets, and access to one-third of the project's off-street parking will come from Pine Street. Planning Commission Minutes February 21, 1995 - Page Four (d) General office uses generate substantially less vehicle trips per day than do more intensive uses such as restaurants, convenience stores, etc. (e) Access to the project must be visible by customers in order to be understood by customers. First-time customers will not be looking for alley access, and will need a visible access, while regular customers will know about the back parking lot and will be educated to use it. No one else came forward in support of or in opposition to the site plan. There were no further questions or comments. Commissioner Johnson moved that they aogrove Resolution #315 recommending a Site Plan for a Commercial Building on East Pine Street (Applicant: Tom Malot) including all conditions listed in the staff reports modification of Condition No. 7 in Exhibit A of Public Works Staff Report so that street liaht is installed on north side of Pine Street in the Middle of the block across from the oroiect and based on the Planning Commission findings supporting the access on Pine Street. Commissioner Farber seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Dunlap. yes: Fish. ves: Karolyne Johnson, ves: and 1 Valerie Rapp, yes and the motion carried unanimously. H. MISCELLANEOUS - Next Planning Commission Meeting will be on March 7, 1995. George stated that the Commission will be working on upcoming annexation process. VIII. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Dunlap moved that the Meeting Adjourn, Commissioner Johnson seconded the Motion, all agreed by voice vote and the meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m.