Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 4, 1980 I Minutes November 4, 1930 - Planning Commission Eecting Central Point Council Chambers I. fleeting called to order by Chairman Hillyer at 7:30 p.m. II. Roll call found Chairman Jean Hillyer and Commissioners Theda Havice, George Freeman, Louise Novasad and Dcwane Iiood present. .absent were Commissioners Pat Himmelman and Joy Dixon. Others present were City Administrator Dave Kucera, Building Official/Planner. R.J. Ritchey, City Council. Member Candy Rayburn, Planning Commission Secretary Georg Stotler-de Ruyter and several interested citizens. III. Commissioner Freeman stated that there visa a correction on pa Se 4, paragraph 9, line 4, which should read "cautioned him" . Motion by Havice, second by Freeman to approve the 11inutes of the October 21, 1980 Planning Commission Beating with the above correction. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. IV. A. No Correspondence B. No Public Appearances ' Commissioner Dixon arrived at 7:37 p.m. V. Old Business A. Adoption of Resolution A Resolution of Recommendation of Denial of the Preliminary Plat for Cherry Park Subdivision North 10th and Cherry Streets J.C. Map Page 37-21d-2BC, Tax Lots 600, 1100 & 1400 City "Lone/R-3, Coma Plan Designation/ High Density Residential Daniel & Victor Kosmatka and Gerald Corcoran, Applicants Building Official/Planner R.J. Ritchey stated that City Administrator Kucera had reviewed the Resolution and had stated that it should include the reasons for denial, that attaching and referencinG the Minutes was not sufficient. Discussion Notion by Freeman, second by Havice to ta`-le this matter until the November 12, 1980 Planning Commission Neeting and have Staff re-draft the resolution. Roll call vote found all in favor, c.otion carried. VI. .i. Joint Meeting with City Council to Consider the Adoption of ., Revised Fence Ordinance. 1 i liinutes Planning Commission hoeting November 4, 1950 - page 2 Council Rember Candy Rayburn was the only Council hover present. Building Official/Planner P,.J. Ritchey reviewed the changes that have been made. They gore as follows: 15.20.010 Compliance with regulations required. It is unlawful for any person hereafter to construct a fence, freestanding wall, retniniing wall., hedge or vegetative screen on, along or parallel with a property line in violation of the height limitations imposed by this chapter. 15.20.020 section on lots. The following shall apply to all lots other than corner lots: A. The maximum height for fences, freestanding walls, retaining walls, hedges or vegetative screens on or along the sidelines from the front property line to a point opposite the nearest front corner of the main structure shall be three and one-half feet, and from the nearest front corner of the main structure to the back line of the lot, the maximum height shall be six feet. B. The maximum height for fences, freestanding walls, retaining walls, hedges or vegetative screens on or alone; the back lot line shall be six feet. C. The maximum height for fences, freestanding walls, retaining walls, hedges or vegetative screens along the front lot line shall be three and one-half feet. 15.20.030 Erection on corner lots. The following shall apply to all corner lots: No fence, freestanding wall, retaining wall, hedge or vegetative screen on or along a property line shall be higher than six feet; provided however, that no fence, freestanding well, retaining wall, hedge or vegetative screen along or upon a property line shall be of a height greater than three and one- half feet where such fence, freestanding wall, retaining wall, hedge or vegetative screen is closer than twenty feet from the front right-of-way line. 15.20.070 Variance. Any person may apply to the City Administrator for a variance to the construction requirements of Section 15,20.04^. The application shall contain such reasonably necessary information as may be prescribed by the City Administrator and shall be accompanied by a filing and processing fee of ten dollars. The City Administrator shall present the application to the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission finds that the variance requested or that a variance in a form modified by the Planning Commission is necessary to permit the applicant reasonable use and enjoyment of his land in a mange': similar to other similar properties, and that the use and enjoyment of other properties will not be substantially affected, the Planning Commission may grant the variance by motion duly recorded in the recorder' s minutes directing the City Administrator, or his subordinate officer, to issue a permit according to the application or as such application is modified. 15.20.090 Encroachment into Public Ri ht-oL_Way Prohibited. Minutes Planning Commission meeting November 43 1980 - page 3 A. No part of any structure or any appendage thereto shall project beyond the property line of the Luilding site. (Uniform Building Code, Section 45013 1979 Ed.) Council Eember Rayburn drew plot plans on the chalk board illustrating the above changes. Council 1lember Golding arrived at 7: 53 p.m. . Chairman Hillyer asked if Section 15.20.020 (revised) did not read that the occupant can choose which is the front yard and which is the side yard on a corner lot. Building Official/Planner Ritchey answered that was correct, but each individual lot will have to be considered on its own merits, and that in the case of a driveway along a side property line, the 3'1- foot maximum will have to be maintained 10 feet along the street and 10 feet along the drive. Council Member Earl lordby arrived at 3:00 p.m. Council member Rayburn asked about through lots. Chairman Hillyer stated that through lots are dealt with strictly as a variance. ' Discussion Geneva Cox, 5080 Rock Way commented on Section 15.20.090, Encroachment Into Public Right-of-Way Prohibited stating that she felt the State Building Code pertains to State Highways and not to city property, and that she feels the definition of a structure in the UBC is too general and pertains to buildings. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the UBC states: "No...structure.... shall project beyond the property line" and continued that it doesn't matter what is on the other side, a public right-of-way or another persons property. Mr. Ritchey read from Medford's Fence Ordinance, the first sentence stating "fences shall not be built in the right-of-way." Council Member Rayburn stated that she had talked to the Medford Building Dept and Public Works Dept and had been told in certain cases they allowed landscaping, with a maintenance agreement attached to the deed that assures the city the right to use the land when needed. Chairman Hillyer stated that she had called Medford and asked if she could build a retaining wall in the right-of-way and had been told no. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the matter of a maintenance agreement had been discussed with the City Attorney at some length at the time 11r. Cox first made the request and had stated that such an agreement would be very cumbersome and hard to enforce. 1 Ilinutes Planning Commission leeti.ng November 4, 1980 - page 4 Chairman Hillyer stated that a big problem is that people don' t know where their front property line is located. Council Member Golding stated that the problem with the right-of-way is what can be done there, and that part of the Council wanted to allow shrubbery, trees, retaining walls and fences in the right-of-way with the understanding that if that land is needed the improvements would be removed at that time without the city having to incur the costs of removal or replacement. Chairman Hillyer stated that the city has, by ordinance, adopted the UBC and such a proposal is in violation of that ordinance. Mrs. Cox stated that if everyone ignores the right-of-way areas it will be a very unattractive situation. Commissioner Havice stated that the property that Mrs. Cox is speaking of is public property and that the UBC governs in this case. Council Member Golding stated that there are too many variables to make a blanket statement about right-of-ways. Chairman Hillyer stated that what is being suggested is that anyone who wants to build past the property line can come to the Planning Commission for a variance. Council Member Earl Nordby stated that if something is going to come to t`le Planning Commission on a continuing basis for a variance, it should not be dealt with under the variance process. Commissioner Dixon stated that if the Planning Commission allows the Cox' s variance they must allow everyone a variance. All the illegal fences, etc. were done without permit and the city does not go around issuing citations and having people tear down fences or what have you. However, any citizen can make a complaint which the city can act on and have the offending structure removed. Council Member Golding stated that by not providing a mechanism to allow variances, we cause people to bypass the system and put up whatever they want, and that we need to figure out a way for people to put something in the right-of-way. Mr. Golding continued, stating that he was not talking about variances but a means to allow it to happen if findings can be given showing a reasonable use of the property and not something outrageous. Commissioner Havice stated that the City ttorney advised us that 1•:e would be in violation of the UBC if we were to allow this to happen. Therefore, it would have to be a variance, as it is in loth the Central Point Iiunicipal Code and State lava that we shall not do this. Drn Pfaff, 4123 Sunland, Central Point stated that it seers if people were allowed to improve and beautify the right-of-way areas, we would have a more beautiful to*m.. Commissioner Freeman stated that a retaining wall is another matter, a `once and shrubbery is not as permanent as a store wall. linutes Planning Commission l;eeting tiovember 4, 1980 - page 5 Commissioner Ilavice stated that nothing is being achieved by this discussion arC, that we should move on to the next item of business. Council Plember Coldi.ng stated that this right-of-way situation needs to be addressed, that basically he felt that we need to incourage a means for people to apply to do this and develop criteria for what to base the decision on, a,id that the public right-of-way belongs to the people and that the Cox' s should have the right to beautify the right-of-way with the.understanding that it will be removed if needed. Chairman Hillyer stated that the changes that have been made to the fence ordinance are attempts to allow people more lattitude in regards to where fences can go, to allow them a means to do more with their property. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the only legal way to allow the Cox' s to build the retaining wall is to vacate the portion of the right-of-way in question. Council Ilember Colding stated that he felt another joint study session should be called and the entire background of the issue covered. Chairman llillyer stated that the Planning Commission has worked on a weekly basis for some time to develop this revised ordinance. ' Council Eenber 11ordby stated that the Council saw this revised ordinance for the first time at the October 23, 1980 Council Ileeting. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that it has been 3 months since the Planning Commission adopted it, but the Comp Plan was more important so it was set aside for a time. Notion by Havice, second by Novasad to table the matter until the Council has had a chance to study it and calls for a joint meeting, as the Planning Commission has been working on it for 3 months and the Council has just received it. Council Member Rayburn stated that this joint meeting was at Councils request as the Planning Commission has already adopted this revised ordinance and there were differences in ideas that needed to be discussed. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Recess called at 9:00 p.m. by Chairman llillyer. Pieeting called back to order by Chairman Hillyerr at 9:10 p.m. B. Planning Commission Recommendations for Chan-es in City Zoning anc ' Comp Plan. This item moved to a later place on the agenda so as not to detain the citizens in the audience any longer than necessary. hSinutes Planning Commission Neeting November 4, 19sO - Page 6 G. Discussion on Pfaff Ylholesale t= retail/wholesale limber yard. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that Pfaff 'Jholesnle, 26 Pine, Central Point, is a non-eonformin- use and ns such cannot be expanded under existing ordinances, but that there are two ways to go to allow the expansion. Zither change the zone or change tLe text of the zoning ordinance to allot: such uses. Don Pfaff, owner, stated that he wanted to put a 301 Y. 32, addition on the rear of his building for storage purposes, and requested a conditional use permit or something that would allow him to go ahead and build,as he understood that sooner or later the ordinance will be changed. Commissioner Havice asked what the procedure was to change the conditional uses in a zone. Chairman llillyer stated that the procedure is to hold a public meeting at the Planning Commission level, review the changes and make a recommendation to the Council. November 18, 1980 is the first chance the Planning Commission would have to review it. Don Pfaff asked if there was not a way they could get permission to go ahead and build on the assumption that the code will be changed. Bob Sarra, Greater Pacific Corp, Box 1151, Medford asked if Pfaff was not issued a conditional use permit to operate. Building Official/Planner Ritchey answered that was not the case, that they had been erroneously issued a business license. Commissioner Havice made a motion to direct Staff to draft a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance and a Resolution of Recommendation of Approval of Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance, and to put the above resolutions on the November 18, 1980 Planning Commission agenda. Second by Dixon. Council Member Rayburn stated that a Public Hearing at the Council level should be advertised so the Council could act at the December 4, 1980 Council Meeting. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Commissioner Havice was excused at 9:30 p.m. B. Planning Commission Recommendations for Changes in City Zoning and/or Comp Plan. Discussion Vill. Motion by Dixon, second by Novasad to adjourn to a study session on the above. Adjournment came at 9:40 p.m.