Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes - March 15, 1993 353 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes March 16, 1993 - Page One I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:05 p.m. (�J II. ROLL CALL: Present were: Chuck Piland, Herb Farber, Candace Fish, Lloyd (� Governor, Randy Graves. Karolyne Johnson had informed the Commission that U she would not be able to attend, and word was sent to the Commission that m Diane Galley would be also be absent. Others present were Dave Kucera-City Q Administrator, George Rubaloff-City Administrative Assistant, Larry R. Blanchard-Public Works Director, and Cecelia Gordon-Planning Commission Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE - None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Fish moved to approve the Minutes of the March 2, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Farber seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote: Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Governor, yes; Graves, yes; and the Motion passed unanimously. V. BUSINESS A. Review of Irrevocable Consent document related to Site Plan Approval for addition to Grange Co-Op Card-Controlled fueling Station at northwest Corner of Pine and Front Streets. George Rubaloff referred his Memorandum of March 12, 1993 and the attached March 12, 1993 letter from the Grange Co-Op in which they outlined their willingness to dedicate ten feet of their property and pay the City $6066.00 as their participation to future Local Improvement District, and entered those documents into the record by reference. 354 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1993 - Page Two George Rubaloff handed out the copies of the forms entitled "Dedication to Public of Street Right-of-Way" and the "Agreement for Consent to Inclusion in Local Improvement District and for Waiver of L.I.D. Assessment", and entered those items into the record by reference. He also stated that the action that the Commission needed to take tonight was to approve the dollar amount for widening West Pine to be entered into the Consent Document. Mr. Jim Hudson, 3619 Ross Lane, Central Point, Oregon representing the Grange Co-Op. Mr. Hudson stated that he understood that they would sign the Agreement, pay the City, and then the Grange would be free of any future assessment on the widening of Pine Street, and that the Grange Board was concerned that upon payment of the $6,066.00 that this would insure them that they would not have to participate in the future widening of Pine Street. Dave Kucera, City Administrator stated that to clarify the Agreement there were two parts, participation and assessments. 1 . That the Grange for whoever the future owner of this property might be) would agree to give its irrevocable consent to include the property in any Local Improvement District formed for the purpose of constructing street improvements on West Pine Street, west of N. Front Street; and 2. In consideration of payment to the City, the City would make no assessment against the Grange property for any of the improvements pursuant to a future Local Improvement District relating specifically to widening West Pine Street to 100 feet, including curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. There were no further questions from Mr. Hudson, or the Commission. Commissioner Fish moved that the Commission recommend that the Agreement for Consent to Inclusion in Local Improvement District and for Waiver of L.I.D. Assessment with the amount of $6,066 be inserted on Page Two of the Agreement, be approved as written. Commissioner Governor seconded the Motion: Roll Call Vote: Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Governor, yes; and Graves, yes. The Motion passed unanimously. 355 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Agenda March 16, 1993 - Page Three B. Public Meeting - Review and Determination regarding proposed Legislative Housekeeping Amendments to Title 16 (Subdivisions) and Title 17 (Zoning) of the Central Point Municipal Code N Chairman Piland opened the Public Meeting. mGeorge Rubaloff referred to his Memorandum of March 12, 1993, the Q Addendum to Proposed Legislative Housekeeping Amendments, and Certification of Posting Notice of Public Meeting, dated March 8, 1993, and entered those items into the record by reference. George Rubaloff also announced that the City Council decides upon the amendments to text of City Ordinances, and have scheduled a public hearing on April 15, 1993. The general provisions of the City also require that the Planning Commission review legislative amendments to CPMC 17 and make recommendations. George Rubaloff suggested that tonight's meeting include public comment. He informed the Commission that there were two documents, one sent to the Commission on February 15, 1993, and the addendum No. 1 included in the packet. He also stated that the overall amendments were made to address typographical errors, changes in fees, clearer language to replace confusion or conflict, improve administration of rules for efficiency, align local rules with the State Rules and Regulations, and add approved similar compatible uses. FARBER: 16.10.090 - Stated that he recognized the new language in Conditions on Tentative Plan give the City the ability to attach any conditions deemed by the City to be reasonable and necessary in the interest of the public health, safety and welfare. 356 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1993 - Page Four RUBALOFF Some years ago the Home Occupation approval was removed from Conditional Use process and put in the General Provisions as an Administrative Action. At that time, the change was not deleted from the List of Conditional uses in each of the Chapters pertaining to residential zones. PILAND: Is this listed as a permitted use? RUBALOFF: No, but if you go to 17.60.190, the Code outlines the whole process for Home Occupation. FARBER: 16.10.090 - including bikeways, signals, etc. allows the Planning Commission and Planning Staff to be able to require those types of improvements because of the greater impact on the street. (that is the primary reason, to have the means to require these additional improvements). RUBALOFF: This makes the list more comprehensive, and allow staffs the ability to add those conditions at the Tentative Plan process. FARBER: What about the duplex, and partitioning? GRAVES: 17.24.080(085) - (Relating to additional dwellings on one tax lot) We've scratched out "A" - what it takes specifically to meet the requirement. RUBALOFF: We took our cue from the City Council on this Amendment. The first of three conditions relating to Lot Area was deleted. FARBER: Should have minimum width of the driveway, when you have more than one dwelling unit. For instance, enough room for two way traffic. GRAVES: Don't we already have that ordinance for Flag Lots - (20' width) FARBER: What is the difference in one driveway serving two units, and a flag lot for access? BLANCH: Minimum 18' for 2 way, (Attorney found something in Code) access. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1993 - Page Five FARBER: We should have the same standard, should not have confusion on right of way widths, and driveway widths. BLANCH: Flag lots says minimum 20' paved access. GRAVES: 17.60.120 - Clear Vision/Measurement, why take out the detailed measurement and refer to the Public Works Manual. RUBALOFF: We took the specific language out of the Zoning. The Public Works Standards has clear vision specifications. BLANCH: Definition is in the code, and the actual information is in the Public Works Standards, which is more detailed. FISH: Also if standards are updated, then the Ordinance does not have to go through the approval process for updating this information. GRAVES: Why don't we then go through the Public Works Standards for clear 1 vision, and lot access. BLANCH: What we need to determine is if the access is onto private property,(zoning) or onto public right of way (PW Standards). GRAVES: 1 am assuming we are talking about private property. Larry Blanchard went to the blackboard to illustrate how the City measures for clear vision. David Kucera also went to the blackboard and stated that street, lot lines are for corner lot clear vision. FARBER: 17.60.120 - This should be clarified to show whether we are talking about driveways, alleys, street intersections, etc. PILAND: 17.60.010 - Is this how the clear vision is applied? z�� THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1993 - Page Six BLANCH: The PW Standards include sight distance measurements for all types of intersections. Larry Blanchard handed out copies of the Public Works Standards for clear vision at intersections. GRAVES: Is the PW Standards for both lots and streets? KUCERA: 17.60.010 is establishing the criteria, and 17.60.020 defines the method for measuring. GRAVES: If we are going to take away number, let's take them away from both ordinances. KUCERA: We need to research clear vision standards for driveways. RUBALOFF: 17.72.030 - provides a more complete checklist of requirements for Site Plan Applications. FARBER: We rely on staff to determine if Site Plan is ready to go to the Planning Commission. FARBER: 12.02.010 - Street Improvements- figure out some type of hierarchy is established to determine when the development kicks in for involvement in street improvements? D W RUBALOFF: Someone just building a residence or a garage would not have to go n through the site plan process, and therefore would not be subject to --J street improvement requirements. N FARBER: What about the example of the Grange Co-Op wanting to simply extend their canopy. KUCERA: The Grange by their own testimony, agreed that there would be more traffic, a clear impact on traffic (can and will attract more costumers).The Grange canopy matter was reviewed by the City Attorney and determined to be reasonably related to street improvements. TTY CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1993 - Page Seven If there was zero impact on traffic, the City would have a tough time requiring involvement in any street improvements. FARBER: I am concerned about when we are doing a Site Plan Review in unimproved area that we lay all the improvements on one development. Mitigation should be commensurate with impact. The percentage of increase impact should be equitable with the amount of improvements required. (1 %, 10%, 100%). KUCERA: There are three issues: 1 . Look at case by case, by case is there increased traffic? 2. It would be difficult to apply a formula to uniformly address the ' situation. 3. Our attorney makes decisions based on what we could defend in court. FARBER: 16.10.010 - Submission Application fees - why was the 21 days lead time deleted? RUBALOFF: The meeting date of the Hearing is set according to work scheduling necessary for the completion of the staff work---all within the 120 day decision time period. Initial Application is a 30 day review - to either accept, or write a list of information needed to complete the Application. Then there is a period of 150 days (we are guided by State Law). FARBER: When you take in an Application is it officially accepted, or do you have a review period. OU CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1993 - Page Eight RUBALOFF: A thirty day review period is allowed before official acceptance of the Application. Before the end of that 30 days, the City has to accept the Application or prepare a list of items that need to be completed before it can be accepted. FARBER: ...than that 120 day clock starts. KUCERA: If it just comes in ready to go, then they have 150 days. If it comes in and we send it back, then the 30 day period starts this process, with 120 days remaining. RUBALOFF: Site Plans do not require fees, so we write letters, stating that we have accepted the Application, then the 120 day period begins. KUCERA: ...if the Applicant takes the plan back, and waits two months to return it, the 120 days starts upon reapplication. PILAND: Looks like we have questions on 17.24.080 or 085 on the driveway access, and why it was changed. RUBALOFF: (1) Check on why 20 foot access changes to 18 foot access on CPMC 17.24.080 A (new) (re: Additional dwelling on single lot). (2) Respond back as to concern that there should be a guideline to determine mitigation (street improvements?) required for development impact re CPMC 12.02.010 (new). h (3) Clarify if CPMC 17.60.120 (clear vision) applies to driveways. C7 (4) Clarify CPMC 17.64.100 (D) (Parking Standards) related to how N driveway width is measured. Ul (5) Determine if CPMC 17.72.040 (B) relating to ingress/egress needs to be amended to address on site issues. KUCERA: 17.64.100 - Parking design, talks about driveways. Research will probably get a little complicated. 60t 37'7 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes March 16, 1993 - Page Nine FARBER: It might help when covering driveways, to define whether there is a need for one way or two way traffic for more than one dwelling. (multiple unit dwellings). Conflicts between traffic coming in and going out. Propose to look at requiring two way access for duplexes. RUBALOFF: 17.64.100 - maneuvering....item E.3.....backing or maneuvering into the LO public right of way. In the phrase one or two family dwellings...take out N the two family dwelling. 0 Andy Cocoran, 624 W. Valley View Road, Ashland, Oregon, (owns property at [n corner at 1 st and Laurel), interested in developing that corner. I will have two Q units, will these people be allowed to back out onto the street. COCORAN: As an example, if there is a property with two dwelling units would they be allowed to back onto the street. RUBALOFF: Not if the wording...two family dwelling...is taken out of the ordinance. PILAND: Front and back duplex? COCORAN: Yes, (he showed drawing on blackboard). FARBER: The example you are working on now, is behaving the same as two single family dwellings, side by side. We are dealing with dual point access on one lot and one point access on another. The wording should address the number of driveways. KUCERA: We should review this on a case by case basis at the Site Plan review process. (Duplex Driveways) RUBALOFF: Then 17.64.100 is better left alone. BLANCH: The driveway access rules are included in the PW Standards (is stated in the CMPC code in several places.(CMPC 12.08 - 17.60.130 - 16.36.040) 3'78 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Meeting March 15, 1993 - Page Ten GRAVES: One unit behind another, should be the same standards for driveway for flag lot. FARBER: We have the flexibility to go anywhere from 10' to 36' wide driveway requirement ...room for decision. KUCERA: 17.72.040 - B. Take to City Attorney to see if language can be changed. RUBALOFF: April 6, 1993 Planning Commission Meeting is scheduled, we can work on some of these points and come back at that time. GRAVES: Then we can leave it up to staff to take care of these changes. It was suggested that after The City Attorney makes changes,that the City will share that Packet (Council) with the Planning Commission before the April 15, 1993 Council Meeting. (April 9th packet delivery day if it can be ready). Commissioner Graves moved to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed amendments and changes as noted by the Planning Commission to Title 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code. Commissioner Governor second the Motion. Roll Call Vote: Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Governor, yes; and Graves, yes. The Motion passed unanimously. V. MISCELLANEOUS - When the amendments are approved, the Commission will be given the new material, and you can throw away the old ones. VI Adjournment Commissioner Governor moved that the meeting adjourn. Commissioner Farber seconded the Motion. According to voice vote, all signified Aye and the Meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. PCMTS316.MIN