Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 7, 1980 1 Minutes October 7, 1980 - Planning Commission Meeting Central Point Council Chambers I. Fleeting called to order by Chairman 1[illyer at 7:30 p.m. II. Roll call. found Chairman Hillyer and Commissioners Theda Havice, Louise Novasad and Pat Himmelman present. :.bsent were members George Freeman and Joy Dixon. Others present were City Administrator Dave Kucera, Building Official/Planner R.J. Ritchey, City Council Member Ron Holmgren, Planning Commission Secretary Georg Stotler-de Ruyter and several interested citizens. City Administrator Kucera administered the oath of office of Planning Commissioner for the City of Central Point to Dewane Hood. Mr. Hood will be filling Position #5 which will expire January 1, 1981. Congratulations and welcome! III. 11otion by Havice, second by Himmelman to approve the Minutes of the September 16, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting as presented. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. IV. A. No Correspondence B. No Public Appearances V. Old Business A. 1068 Plan Review - Sidewalk Construction, Pacific NW Bell 336 Manzanita J.C. Map Page 37-2W-3DD, Lots 3 & 4, Block 3, Original Town City Zone/C-2, Comp Plan Designation/General Commercial Harold Salter, Applicant Harold Salter, General Contractor for the project, 30 Hawthorne, Medford, representing Pacific NW Bell appeared, stating that what they plan to do is level the ground and construct a sidewalk to match the sidewalk installed along Manzanita beside First Federal Savings, thereby improving conditions in the city by removing a hazard that now exists. Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Staff Report stating that the improvement will block off-street access, leaving a 14 foot wide access drive from the alley, that the old approaches shall be removed and replaced by curbs to city standards, that the new trees shall meet Municipal Code for types and location of trees on parking strip, and that the transition from this development to the unimproved area to the east will be gradual and not create a hazard like the one now existing. Discussion Joy Dixon arrived at 7:35 p.m. Motion by Himmelman to approve the 1068 Plan Review, subject to Staff Report, 1 ) Minutes Planning Commission Neeting October7, 1980 - page 2 second by Havice. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. B. Preliminary Plat Review - Cherry Park Subdivision North 10th & Cherry Streets, City Zone/R-3, Comp flan/Iligh Density J.C. Nap Page 37-2W-2BC, Tax Lots 600, 1100 & 1400 Daniel & Victor Kosmatka and Gerald Corcoran, Applicants. Victor Kosmatka, 3094 Wells -argo Road, Central Point, Applicant, stated that they feel they have met all the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance but two and are requesting variances for (1) Length of cul-de-sac; and, (2) number of dwelling units on cul-de-sac. Mr. Kosmatka then read a letter, dated October 2, 1980 requesting said variances, and read an addendum to the above letter dated October 8, 1980 containing the applicant's proposed findings. Chairman llillyer asked what the length of the cul-de-sac was. Building Official/Planner Ritchey answered that it was approximately 800 feet from Cherry Street and the ordinance allows 400 feet with no more than 12 dwelling units. Chairman llillyer asked how many units were proposed. I•Ir. Ritchey answered that there was the potential of 175 dwelling units, if the property was developed to it' s maximum density, thereby creating a possible 900 vehicle trips per day. Victor Kosmatka explained the preliminary plat stating that they are requesting the variances because any other type of street design would be too costly as this proposal is not a very large development. Commissioner Hood asked if Cherry Street to the west was not an 80 foot right-of- way, and expressed concern with the road narrowing. Victor Kosmatka stated that it is not a straight street but that there is a 100 foot jog between intersections. Chairman Hillyer asked Mr. Kosmatka if in speaking of a 50 foot street he meant that it would be paved that wide. Victor Kosmatka answered that it would be a 50 foot right-of-way with 36 feet of paving. Commissioner Havice asked Building Official/Planner Ritchey if the Hunicipal .Code did not require a wider street. Mr. Ritchey answered that it would have to be wider if it were a collector street; and addressed the first statement of the addendum letter (regarding public safety) stating that traffic safety is a large part of the city' s concern at this ti.mp. Minutes Planning Commission I;ee*_ing October 7, 1900 - page 3 Mr. Ritchey then presented the Staff Report stating, that sewer easements, sanitary sewers and storm drains are not shown on the Preliminary Plat but could be presented on the engineered drawings. Mr. Ritchey continued, stating that water lines are not shown and that the developer would be required to install a 12 inch water line from Hazel Street to the southern boundary of the property and provide an easement for the same; that the city may negotiate with the developer on the difference in cost of 4 inch versus 12 inch water line; and that the street improvements on Cherry Street will commence at North 10th Street and improve the intersection to city standards. Mr. Ritchey concluded, stating that the applicant must bear the burden of proof that the variance request is the result of extraordinary or unusual circumstances creating an unusual hardship or endangering the health and safety of the general public. Daniel Kosmatka, 315 N Berkeley Way, I;edford, Applicant, appeared stating that waterlines, sewer lines and storm drains are shown on the plat by dotted lines, though no sizes are shown; that the bench mark could be set at the time of engineering and surveying; and that nothing is shown on lot three as Gerry Corcoran does not want to develop now and that it seems unfair to ask a street design of him at this time. Victor Kosmatka stated that the street design of the parcel on the south will be private streets in a planned unit development and the city' s concern should only be with public streets. Daniel Kosmatka continued, stating that the sewer line that runs through tl;e property ,.,as some of the first installed in the area, is in disrepair, needs to be repler_ed, and that they are in a position to do that now as a part of this development; and concluded by .stating that the length of time they have been working on this project has put a severe economic lardship upon them. Chairman Hillyer stated that she did not feel that the city had delayed them; that the Planning Commission has not seen 10 or 11 plans; that only two plans have been submitted for Planning Commission Review; and that the applicants letter seems to say that the city has been causing the hardship. Both Daniel and Victor Kosmatka stated that was not the intent of the letter. Victor Kosmatka addressed the introduction of the Staff Report stating that they have submitted similar designs each time because they are limited by what they have. Victor Kosmatka addressed item iF2 of the Staff Report by assigning lot and block numbers, as noted on the "Inspector' s Copy"of the Preliminary Plat. Block l., lots 1 - 12 are owned by the Kosmatkas, Block 2, lots 1 - 3 and Block 3 are owned by Gerald Corcoran. Lot 12, Block 1 is in dual ownership at this time, but will be transferred to the Kosmatkas. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated the change of ownership would have t:o be shown on the final drawings and be a condition of preliminary plat approval. "llnutes Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 19 80 - page 4 Commissioner Havice asked if all the lot areas were to code. Building Official/Planner Ritchey answered that the smallest lot was just over 6000 sq.ft., too small for a four-plex but within the minimum lot size requirements. Mr. Ritchey continued, expressing concern ;:ith the possibility of lots being created in the future, radiating off the south part of the cul-de-sac into Block 3, as well as the possibility of one or two private streets. Chairman Hillyer stated that the Planning Commission wants to make sure that what is approved will be sufficient for the future, and that if this proposal were approved, the Planning Commission would be locking ltr. Corcoran into a P.U.D. development because of street design. Myron Corcoran, 3570 Hanley Road, Central Point, representing Gerald Corcoran, stated that the area is intended to be a planned unit development although Gerald does not really know what he wants to do with the property, but he cannot afford to put in a road that cannot be used in the future. Commissioner Havice stated that was precisely Chairman Hillyer' s concern, that the Planning Commission does not want to lock Mr. Corcoran into one ownership by approving a street design that allows no further choices. Discussion Victor Kosmatka commented on the street construction stating that they intend to begin cutting out the street at about lot v4 to maintain a 127 grade. Building Official/Planner Ritchey explained item 463 of the Staff Report stating that Block 3 and Lots 11 and 12 need easements for sewer; and that the utility districts require an easement along all street frontage, both in the P.U.D. area and the area now under consideration. Victor Kosmatka addressed item #4 of the Staff Report stating that they will keep the manholes in the street but the grade will not allow them to keep the line in the street. Chairman Hillyer questioned the fact that no fire hydrants are shown on the plat. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that at least two will be required in Cherry Park Subdivision and more in the Y.U.D. area. Victor Kosmatka addressed item 465 of the Staff Report stating that the existing Cherry Street storm drain is shown on the plat within two feet of the actual location and that attempts to locate it are presently being conducted. Building Official./Planner Ritchey explained item #6 of the Staff Report stating that Municipal Code requires a 60 foot lot width at the front building line of lots on a cul-de-sac, therefore the building lines on lots 9. 10 & 11 need to be shown. Discussion Ninutes Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1980 - page S Building Official/Planner Ritchey read item 9t7 of the Staff Report stating that Section 1.6.24.060 authorizes the Planning Commission to require a "sketch of a tentative layout for streets in the unsubdivided portion. . ." Victor Kosmatka addressed item 48 of the Staff Report stating that there is an existing 6 inch stub on Cherry Street and that they plan on putting an 8 inch line in. Building Official/Planner Ritchey explained item ` 9 of the Staff Report stating that the city will have to decide where the proposed 12 inch Hazel Street water line will be located and that the city may negotiate the difference in cost of 8 inch versus 12 inch line with the developer. Victor Kosmatka stated that he agreed to item #10 of the Staff Report regarding improvement of the intersection of Cherry Street and North 10th to city requirements. In answer to item #11 of the Staff Retort, Victor Kosmatka stated that they had indicated a section corner on the plat and that the bench mark will be established at the time of the engineering and surveying of the property. Victor Kosmatka addressed item v12 of the Staff Report stating that the lot areas simply had not been transfered when this tracing was done; that they had been on ' the original; and that all the lots do comply with the ordinance requirements. Building Official/Planner Ritchey read item i'r`13 of the Staff Report stating that the applicant must bear the burden of proof and show that extraordinary or unusual circumstances are creating an unusual hardship or endangering the health and safety of the general public in order for a variance to be granted under the subdivision ordianance. At this time Chairman Hillyer opened the discussion of the first variance requested by the applicants, that of the length of the cul-de-sac. Building Official/Planner commented on the statement in the applicant' s letter ref.ering to 10 plat presentations and stated that the city has been trying to get a street design preferably with a loon for access but the city' s proposals have been rejected by the applicants because they took up too much land. Victor Kosmatka stated that the loop proposals created through lots which are considered undesireable by the Municipal Code. Myron Corcoran stated that economically they could not develop the property with the loop, and that he looks at the development economically while Building Official/ Planner Ritchey looks at it for the city. Chairman ilill.yer asked the applicants if their reasons for requesting the variances were primarily economic. ' Byron Corcoran stated that they were not, that a long street with a cul-de-sac is the only way they can develop the property. 1 'Minutes Planning Commission Necting October 7, 1980 - page G Chairman Hillyer requested an explanation of the pedestrian way shown on the plat. Victor Kosmatka stated that it was not a requirement of this proposal but it may be of any future development to the south so it was included at this time. Daniel Kosmatka stated three reasons supporting the hardship they claimed existed: 1) Economic; 2) LCDC Goal u14 Urbanization; 3) LCDC Goal 9'10 Housing. Commissioner Hood stated if they were to develop the area at single family density they could possibly use the street design proposed, and continued by stating that the applicants are faced with a restriction in the liunicipal Code and may have to amend their ideas. Victor Kosmatka stated by changing to single family, the value of the lots would be cut in half. Commissioner Havice stated that the Planning Commission has rules to follow in making any decision, that she felt the public was not being considered in this case and that they cannot find in favor of n hardship situation if the public welfare is being endangered. Victor Kosmatka stated that they are faced with an area that has very limited access and that is why they are asking for the variances. Commissioner Havice stated that is why the Planning Commission is being so careful, so as not to place Gerald Corcoran in the same situation. Chairman Hillyer closed the discussion on the variance request for the length of the cul-de-sac and stated that the next variance request was to the "not more than 12 dwelling units on a cul-de-sac" requirement in the 1•11uni.cipal Code. Victor Kosmatka stated that housing costs have risen out of sight and by developing this land, they will be providing economical housing for a variety of economic backgrounds. Chairman Hillyer asked how many dwelling units were planned for their development. Victor Kosmatka stated there were 44 possible on their property with a total potential of 175 units on both properties. Chairman Hillyer asked for any further comments, stated that the burden of proof is on the applicant, and that the Planning Commission would, at this time, deliberate and decide if an extraordinary hardship exists. Commissioner Dixon stated that the length of the cul-de-sac and the downgrade bothered her; that a downgrade situation typically ups the speed of traffic and that children and elderly persons may be endangered. Commissioner Novasad stated that she could not see that there was any more of a problem with traffic and children in this proposed development compared to anywhere else in the city. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1980 - page 7 Commissioner Himmelman stated that she feels a hardship situation does exist, but she did not feel a variance was justified. Commissioner Havice stated that she also feels there is a hardship, but cannot go along with the long cul-de-sac and steep slope of the road. Commissioner Hood stated that the line must be drawn somewhere, that we either have regulations we go by or we throw them out and let everybody do what they want; and that an 800 foot long cul-de-sac, twice the maximum set by Municipal Code, should not be approved. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the 400 foot maximum length was for safety; that the applicants maintain that it is economically impossible to develop this property without the long cul-de-sac, and concluded by stating that there is a way to develop the area but not with the number of lots the applicants would like. Commissioner Havice made a motion, second by Dixon, to deny the requested variance to the 400 foot maximum cul-de-sac length. Roll call vote found Chairman Hill.yer and Commissioners llavice, Hood, Himmelman and Dixon in favor, Commissioner Ilovasad abstained. Majority in favor, motion carried. Chairman liillyer then stated that as the variance to length of cul-de-sac has been ' denied, the number .of units is no longer an issue. ldotion by Dixon to instruct Staff to draft a Resolution of Recommendation of Denial of the Preliminary Plat for Cherry Park Subdivision with the condition that the applicants be allowed to re-submit the plat within 6 months provided that the new submittal meets all the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code. Discussion Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the Municipal Code states that the applicant must appeal the Planning Commission decision within 5 days and that if the Council upholds the Planning Commission decision, the applicant cannot re-apply for one years time. Discussion Commissioner llimmelman seconded the above motion made by Commissioner Dixon. Roll call vote found Chairman liillyer and CommissionersHavice, Hood, Himmelman and Dixon in favor, Commissioner Novasad abstained. Majority in favor, motion carried. V1. New Business A. 1068 Plan Review - Residential Garage & Breezeway 360 S 2nd Street J.C. Map Page 37-2114-11BB, Tax Lot 7700 Portions of lots 7 & S. Block 23, Original 'Town City 'Lone/R-3, Comp Plan Designation/High Density Patrick Henderson, Applicant. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 1980 - page 8 Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Staff Report stating that this application is to attach a new 18 X 26 foot garage to an existing residence by means of a roofed, open-ended breezeway; and had this project been in an R-1 Zone, a building permit would simply have been issued but, as it is in an R-3 Zone the Planning Commission must review it. lir. Ritchey continued, stating that a garage is a permitted use in the R-3 Zone ; that the set=backs comply; that the construction drawings, as presented, meet all local and state codes; that there will be no adverse impact; and that Staff recommends approval. Motion by Hood to approve the project, second by Havice, roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Recess called by Chairman Hillyer at 9:37 p.m. Chairman Hillyer called the meeting back to order at 9:50 p.m. B. Review - Minor Partition Request Southerly corner of Front and Cherry Streets J.C. Map Page 37-217-3DC, Tax Lot 1900 Lots 103 11 & 12, Block 5, Oak Park Addition City Zone/C-2, Comp Plan Designation/General Commercial David Stevens, Applicant Building Official/Planner Ritchey described the application and read the notice provided of the meeting into the record. There were no stated conflicts of interest. Mr. Ritchey then presented the Staff Report stating that (1) the existing building on lot 11 is presently occupied by Crater Electric Co; that (2) any portion of the existing building that extends beyond the proposed property line shall be removed before the Minor Partition can be finalized and recorded; that the change is in conformance with the Comp Plan; that the impact on the area will be positive; and that Staff recommends approval. Mr. Ritchey then stated that the applicant had indicated previously that if either lot 10 or 11 are sold, the existing building will be demolished At this time, Building Official/Planner Ritchey entered the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A, Published notice; Exhibit B, Proponents application; Exhibit C. Map; Exhibit D, Proponents findings.. David Stevens, Applicant, 500 Hemlock, Central Point, stated that he thought he had 3 parcels when he bought the property but now he has discovered it is one tax lot; that he has tried to sell the property in one piece but with no luck; and that the Minor Partition request would create three, 50 X 100 foot lots. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that what the applicant intends to do is re-establish lot lines for lots 10, 11 & 12 that used to exist. l i Minutes Planning Commission I:eeting October 7, 1980 - page 9 No opponents came forward Motion by Havice , second by Himmelman to direct Staff to draft a Resolution of Recommendation of Approval of this liinor Partition request with item i?2 of the Staff Report as a condition of approval. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. C. Expiration of Temporary Occupancy Certificate - Oddfellow Lodge 1130 hazel Street J.C. I:ap Page 37-2W-2BC, Tax Lot 601 City Zone/R-3, Comp Plan Designation/High Density Francis ilarshall, Representative. Building Official/Planner Ritchey read into the record, a letter, dated September 23, 1980 addressed to the Oddfellows Lodge, from the city stating that the July it 1980 deadline to: 1) Grade and gravel Hazel Street from North 10th to the lodge property and provide drainage ditches on both sides; and, 2) Provide storm drainage at the toe of the fill put in during construction, has passed. Mr. Ritchey then read a letter from himself, dated September 23, 1980 addressed to Mayor Dippel & City Council Members containing the above mentioned items r,nd 1 continuing that failure to comply with the conditions of the Temporary Occupancy Certificate authorizes the city to contract for completion at cost to the owner as well as cut off city services; and concluded by stating that Public Works Superintendent Vern Capps is concerned that if the drainage work is not done, it may cause flooding problems during the rainy season. Motion by Dixon , second by Hood to recommend to the Council to take immediate action to do the work, revoke the Temporary Occupancy Certificate and bill the lodge for the work. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Chairman Hillyer stated editorially, that this is typical of what happens when conditions are attached to an approval, a temporary occupancy certificate is granted, and the applicants are given 1 year to comply. VII. Miscellaneous matters A. Fronek Seafood Market 112 Nrront, Re-zone or Conditional Use Proposal Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that Staff has been working with I:r. Fronek for some time, and that the problem lies in the fact that the C-2 Zone does not allow retail and wholesale operations to be carried on at the same plece of business, however the old Comp Plan did allow it in the area which I;r. Fronek has located, but now the new Comp flan does not allow such a use in that a,ea. Mr. Ritchey concluded, stating that a retail/wholesale operation can only be located in LC_LI and not in any of our commercial zones; what the I'lanni.ng Commission and Council should consider is reviewing the uses allowed in our commercial zones as the city maintains that we are trying to encourage new businesses to locate in Minutes Planning Commission 1!eeting October 7, 1980 - page 10 Central Point, yet our zonin^ diseoura.,es them from coming in; and recommender' a change to the text of the zoning ordinance allowing retail/wholesale as a conditional use in some other zones. Chairman Hillyer stated the Planning Commission should take a look, at the ordinances and list changes to recommend. lir. Fronek, 3478 New Ray Road, Central Point stated that he had leased the building when the location was LC_LI on the Comp Plan and now it has changed to General Commercial and retail/wholesale is not allowed. Mr. Fronek continued, stating that wholesale operations will not be conducted at this location, only storage for the wholesale business. Commissioner Hood stated that as long as there is no wholesale from the location, he could see no problem; and that there ::ust be storage for retail as well as wholesale. Chairman Hi.11yer stated that she feels the intent is to allow wholesale in the C-2 Zone. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that when he thinks of wholesale, lie thinks of large warehousing firms; that retail/wholesale could be added as a conditional use so each proposal would he considered on its ovm merits. B. Instructional Seminar - Land Use Planning Planning Commission Secretary Georg Stotler-de Ruyter reported that Marvin Gloege had contacted him by phone several times over the past two weeks and seemed to be putting quite an effort into preparing the seminar. Gold Hill, Eagle Point and Talent have responded to our invitation. The first of these seminars will be the night of October 14 and the second at 7:30 P.M. , October 28, 1980. VIII. Adjournment Motion by Havice, second by Ilimmelman to adjourn. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Adjournment came at 10:45 p.m.