Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 20, 1980 1 Minutes May 20, 1980 - Planning Commission Meeting Central Point Council Chambers I. Meeting was called to order by Chairman Hillyer at 7:40 p.m. 11. Roll call found Chairman Hillyer and Commissioners Havice, Mac Donald, Thelen, Himmelman, and Dixon present. Absent was Commissioner Stallsworth. Others present were City Administrator-Dave Kucera, Building Official/Planner R.J. Ritchey, Planning Commission Secretary Georg Stotler-de Ruyter and several interested citizens. III. Corrections to the May 6, Planning Commission Minutes: Page 1, section III, strike the words "Thelen declined". Page 3, sub-section 5, 2nd paragraph, change "finalled" to "completed". Motion by Thelen, second by Havice to approve the Minutes of the May 6, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting with corrections. All in favor, motion carried. IV. A. Correspondence On May 14, 1980 we received Phase I of the National Hydropower Study being conducted by the Department of the Army. Commissioners MacDonald and Dixon had requested that the Planning Commission receive this information as it becomes available. The study shows 16 small scale hydropower sitf+s in Jackson County. B. No Public Appearances V. Old Business A. Stonecreek. Subdivision, Phase II, Approval of the Construction Drawings. At the request of Building Official Ritchey this item was moved to "Item B" under New Business, so the two matters could be considered concurrently. B. Franek Annexation Request -- CAC Recommendation Approx. 29.5 acres, vicinity of Beall Lane & Snowy Butte Road. J.C. Map Page 37-2W-10, Tax Lots 3901, 3902, & 4000. 37-2W-10AD, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300, 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, 900, 10001 1100, 1200, 1300, 1400, 1500, & 1600. Gayle Franek, Applicant. Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Citizens Advisory Committee recommendation stating that on May 19, 1980 the Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee held a Public Hearing in the Fire Hall to review 'the Frank Annexation Application. Most of the testimony was against the annexation because of the cost of installing the sanitary sewer, increase in taxes, zoning restrictions and the lack of benefits to be gained from annexation. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1980 - page 2 A vote of the property owners present showed eight opposed and four in favor of the proposal. After closing the Public Hearing, the Citizens Advisory Committee Members, Planning Commission Members and Staff reviewed the testimony received and recommend that the application, as proposed, be denied. Following the recommendation, Gayle Franek .stated that she will withdraw the present application and submit a new annexation application for Tax Lots 100, 2001 300 & 400. VI. New Business A. 1068 Plan Review, Multi-Family Development 215 Snowy Butte Road & 162 Glenn Way J.C. Map Page 37-2W-10AC, Tax Lots 2000 & 2001 Boldt-McGraw, Applicant. Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Staff Report, describing the project as consisting of the renovation of an existing single family dwelling and the construction-of a Tri-Plex and a 4-Plex. ' Mr. Ritchey stated that this project was first approved by the Planning Commission on September 19, 1978. The property was sold before construction began. Revised plans were submitted by new owners and were approved, subject to previous staff requirements on March 6, 1979. The new revised plans submitted April 28, 1980 are basically the same as those previously submitted with a few minor changes and corrections. Staff recommended that the application be approved subject to the final revised plans stamped April 28, 1980 and that all conditions of the May 20, 1980 Staff Report and conditions of previous approvals now apply including the following addition to Item #5 of the May 20, 1980 Staff Report: #5 ..."Cost sharing for street improvements and water and sewer line shall be paid by applicant prior to issuance of a Building Permit. The City assumes no responsibility or liability in connection with payment of cost sharing by applicant to Mr. Leonard or Mr. Willcuts." Discussion Motion by Himmelman to approve the 1068 Plan Review subject to all requirements and conditions of previous approvals, the May 20, 1980 Staff Report ,as amended, and the final revised plans stamped April 28, 1980. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. j Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1980 - page 3 B. . Review of Final Plat of Stonecreek Subdivision, Phase II; and, Approval of Construction Drawings (Item A, Old Business, this agenda) These items were moved to a later place on the agenda as the applicant's representative, Mr. Tom Burton, had not yet arrived from Portland. C. Application for Variance to Fence Ordinance 5080 Rock Way J.C. Map Page 36-2W-34DC, Tax Lot 1400 Scenic Village Addition Lewis & Geneva Cox, Applicants Geneva Cox appeared and asked the Planning Commission why others have fenced public property and they cannot. Commissioner Dixon answered that they happened to get caught in the process and that what they would like to do is against the law and the Planning Commission cannot give their approval to break the law. Commissioner Havice stated that she had made an on site inspection and that both neighbors on either side have complied with the Municipal Code. In answer to a statement made at the May 6, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting by the applicants regarding children, bicycles and liability, Commissioner Havice stated that the construction of a vertical masonry wall projecting out two feet past the neighbors sloped retaining walls would be creating the problem the applicants claim they wish to correct. Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Staff Report stating that in granting a variance, the Planning Commission must find that there are exceptional and extraordinary conditions which do not apply generally to land or uses in the same district. Mr. Ritchey continued, "Both property owners adjacent to the applicants have placed retaining banks of rocks and shrubbery behind the property line. All street right-of-ways within the City are public property. At a joint meeting on December 6, 1979 Mayor Curry stated that the Council and Planning Commission had agreed that no fence shall extend beyond the property line." Mr. Ritchey concluded,stating,"Therefore, Staff finds it extremely difficult for the Planning Commission to justify finding in favor of the applicants." Discussion Commissioner Thelen stated that we have a law that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to change. The neighbors on either side have complied with the code, therefore, Commissioner Thelen recommended to the applicants that they hold off until the fence ordinance revision is accomplished. l Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1980 - page 4 Commissioner Himmelman questioned the liability involved. Building Official/Planner Ritchey answered that it is the property owners responsibility to maintain the right-of-way area and has the liability. Commissioner Dixon made a motion not to grant a variance at this time with the provision that the applicants can re-apply after the fence ordinance is changed. Second by Havice. Roll Call vote found all in favor, motion carried. B. Continued from an earilier time on the agenda Review of the Final Plat of Stonecreek Subdivision, Phase II; and Item A, Old Business, Approval of Construction Drawings, Stonecreek Subdivision, Phase II. Located between Snowy Butte Road, Chicory Lane, Beall Lane and Snowy Butte Lane. J.C. Map Page 37-2W- 10AD & 10 DA Willcuts, Motes, Duke, Applicants. Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Final Plat and corrected construc- tion drawings stating that there was one final problem to be resolved and that is the fact that the paved section of Snowy Butte Road is not located within the right-of-way. Mr. Ritchey also stated that the City is in the process of obtaining 15 feet from the property owners on the west side of Snowy Butte. This would result in a 60 foot right-of-way adjacent to Phase II and would also necessitate changing the plat in the curve area just north of the paved area of Snowy Butte. Commissioner Thelen asked Mr. Ritchey if all the changes required previously were on the newly submitted plans and if Snowy. Butte is shown full width as per the original approved plat. Mr. Ritchey stated that all the changes have been incorporated and that Snowy Butte is platted as per the original plat, adding that if the City obtains the 15 feet from the involved parties, the new street will line up with the existing paved portion of Snowy Butte and said paved portion will then be in the actual right-of-way. When asked by the Planning Commission what approaches they could take in making their decision, City Administrator offered the following alternatives: 1) Do nothing until we get a deeded easement for the right-of-way. 2) Approve construction drawings and plat and establish a time limit ' within which to acquire the 15 feet. If that possibility begins to look like it is unlikely, go ahead and construct as shown. 3) Approve plat the way it is. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting May 20, 1980 - page 5 Commissioner Thelen questioned the feeling of those involved towards deeding the 15 foot strip. City Administrator Kucera stated that two out of three property owners have indicated they would deed the 15 feet. The third property owner probably would as they would lose no further land. A curb exists now along the road frontage of the properties and improvements would go up to it. Commissioner Thelen asked if the cost of street development would be borne by the developer. Tom Burton answered that the developer has agreed to build a street and all that is changing is the location of the street. Commissioner Himmelman made a motion to approve the Final Plat and the Construction Drawings for Stonecreek Subdivision, Phase II as proposed, subject to obtaining a 15 foot deeded right-of-way, within 30 days, for the purpose of aligning the streets, to be approved by Staff and the Planning Commission Chairman. Second by Havice. Roll Call vote found all in favor, motion carried. VII. No Miscellaneous Matters VIII. Motion by MacDonald, second by Havice to adjourn. All in favor, motion carried. Adjournment came at 9:45 p.m.