Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes - December 7, 1993 41'7 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes December 7, 1993 - Page One I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. (v II. ROLL CALL: Present were: Chuck Piland, Herb Farber, Candace Fish, Lloyd Governor, and Karolyne Johnson. Also present were George Rubaloff-Planning U Administrator, Larry R. Blanchard-Public Works Director, Mark Servatius-Fire m Chief/Building Office and Cecelia Gordon-Public Works Secretary/Department Q Assistant. Commissioner Graves called saying he could not attend because of illness. III. CORRESPONDENCE - None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fish moved to approve the Minutes of the November 16, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote: Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Governor, abstain; and Johnson, yes, and the Motion passed. V. BUSINESS A. Review and Determination regarding Final Plat Application for Tyler Park Subdivision (37 2W 11 A Tax Lot 1901) (Applicant Noel Moore dba W.L. Moore Construction). George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator, reviewed his Memorandum of 12/3/93 entered the following items into the record by reference: Location Maps, Planning Commission Resolution #255, Public Works Department Staff Report, dated December 3, 1993. In addition the Commission was provided with Resolution #267 for approval, and copies of the Development Agreement and Assignment of Cash (similar to letter of credit) from Pacific Paving. 418 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1993 - Page Two The Commission wanted to know if staff had any concerns about when the contractor would do the paving. Larry Blanchard stated that when weather permits, Spring of 1994, the Contractor would do,,the first slurry. And then prior to March 15, 1997, the City would require the contractor to do the remaining slurry seal. Commissioner Fish asked what would happen if the paving contractor went broke, etc. George Rubaloff answered that the money has been placed in a Savings Trust for the City of Central Point, and that in that case, the money would be used to hire the work done by another paving contractor. Resolution No 267 regarding Final Plat for Tyler Park Subdivision including the Development Agreement. Commissioner Fish moved to approve Resolution 267 for the Final Plat for Tyler Park Subdivision, including the Development Agreement. Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Roll Call Vote: Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Governor, yes; and Johnson, yes. The Motion carried unanimously. C. Review and Determination regarding application for a fence variance at 815 Freeman Road in the vicinity of where Rose Valley Drive and Freeman Road intersect (Applicant David Mitrany). George Rubaloff reviewed his Staff Report, dated 12//3/93 including the Summary, Criteria, Description of Application, Historical Background and Review Discussion. He also entered the following items into the record by reference: Location map, CPMC 15.20, Public Works Standards, Map showing clear vision at 815 Freeman, and the Fence Variance Application. Dave Mitrany, Applicant, 815 Freeman Road, and his legal counsel, Carlysle Stout, 215 Laurel Street Medford, Oregon came forward in support of the Application. Mr. Stout stated that he believed his client's findings satisfied the criteria. He also said that Mr. Mitrany wants to comply with City Ordinances. At that point the Applicant handed out photos of the fence and vicinity to the Commission. 419 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes December 7, 1993 - Page Three Mr. Stout then reviewed each of the criteria, and presented his view of how he believed Mr. Mitrany's fence met each one of them. ( Hardship, Safety, Beautification, Protection to Neighborhood, etc.). Mr. Stout cited the hardship as Mr. Mitrany's mother's condition of Alzheimer's disease. NMr. Mitrany stated that he wants to care for his mother in his home at 815 Freeman Road, and that in order to keep her from wandering off his private U property and on to the public right of way, it would need to be 6' in height. QMr. Mitrany also stated that the 55 foot requirement for sight clearance was based on Freeman Road carrying 2500 vehicle trips per day. Mr. Mitrany discussed the possibility of reclassifying Freeman to the status of a local street because there were not 2500 vehicle trips per day at this point. Larry Blanchard Freeman Road's classification is from the City's comprehensive Plan as such because it will eventually carry traffic between 2500 to 5000 V/td. Mr. Blanchard stated that when the traffic signal is installed on Highway 99 and Beall Lane, traffic patterns would likely change thereby causing Freeman Road to experience an increase in traffic. Chairman Piland asked if Mr. Mitrany's mother lived with him. Mr. Mitrany stated no, but that she is selling her home and intends on moving in with him. Mark Servatius outlined the permit process, and said that both the Building Department and the Public Works Department reviewed the clear vision and sight distance. That the Building Department issued a permit in November of 1990, which became null and void when the fence was not built within the 180 day period, and in April 1991 , another permit was issued, and it too became void, when no fence was built within the 180 day period. He also stated that no permit was issued for the present 6' fence. Commissioner Johnson asked if Mr. Mitrany knew he was in violation of the City Ordinances when he built the 6' fence. He stated that he did. Commissioner Governor asked when the present 6' high fence was constructed. Mr. Mitrany answered that it was completed in July of 1993. Herb Farber asked what the Planning Commission's role was in this process. 420 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 1993 - Page Four George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator, stated that the Commission's options were to: Approve the fence variance; with conditions, and approve; or Deny the fence variance. He also stated that every Planning Commission action is reviewed by the City Council. Herb Farber stated that he did not have a problem with the 6' height of the fence, but that he did have a safety concern, about the sight clearance, and wanted to know what distance a vehicle traveling 25 mph would need to come to a complete stop. Farber also stated that the fence as it is, is a potential traffic problem. Safety is a concern, the neighborhood could change, careless drivers could be a factor. George Rubaloff stated that the Planning Commission could approve this application for a variance through a minute motion, embracing the findings presented in the record or by a decision document (resolution), outlining the Findings and Conclusions. Herb Farber moved that the Commission approve the Application for a fence height variance at 815 Freeman Road in the vicinity of where Rose Valley Drive and Freeman Road intersect, to allow a fence in excess of the maximum 42 inch fence height requirement within the 20 foot setback area on corner lots based on the findings which concluded that a strict application of CPMC 15.20.050 would result in an unnecessary hardship to the applicant. Approval would include a condition that a portion of the fence be reconstructed so that it would follow the angle of the clear vision triangle to the extent that the fence would be no more an obstruction than is the existing residential structure, the southwest corner of which protrudes into the required 55 foot clear vision triangle. Commissioner Fish seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote: Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Governor, yes; and Johnson, yes. The Motion passed unanimously. VI. MISCELLANEOUS - George Rubaloff announced that the next Planning Commission Meeting would be December 21 , 1993. Chairman Piland asked the Commission if this would be a problem for anyone, and no one said that it would. Rubaloff outlined the application and decision which are tentatively scheduled to come before the Commission. VII. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Fish moved that the meeting adjourn. Commissioner Farber seconded the Motion. All voted by signifying "Aye". The Meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. PCMTS 120.93