Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 18, 1980 i Ninutes November 1", 143u - Plannin- Commission i'eeting Central Point Council Cl-.nmbers I. Meeting cnlled to order at 7:30 ;.m, by Chairman hillyer. II. Roll call found Chairman Jean Lillyer n-.nd Commissioners George Freeman, Dewane hood and Fat Hirmclm.an , resent. Absent were Commissioners Thed;i llavicc, Louise Fovasnc and Joy L, Others present were City Administrator Dave Kueera, Building Official/rlanner R.J. Ritchey, Planning Commission secretary Gcorg Stotler-de Ruyter and several interested citizens. M. Notion by Hood, second by 'Freeman to approve the Vinutes of the November 4, 1580 Planning Commission 1ieeting as presented. Roll call vnte found all in favor, notion carried. IV. A. No Correspondence B. Public ATTeorances 1) Bob Blantc::, 13^, 5th, :Tedford , Project Engincer for the `+illy„e P.U.D. orescrtec. the Fire! Development Plan with the changes that City Staff had recommended and stated that on Cctober 27, 1530 they had ' met with the utilities and that PPEL was rirafting a plat showing the necessary F.U,E. s and that the plat lied not yet been received. Er. Blanton continued , stating that the changes involved: 1) the addition of one fire hydrant; 2) protection for the storm sewer inlet to the Meadows with rip-rap (storm sewer ditch will run 250 feet across Suburban Subdivision and will be aligned with the storm sewer inlet at the lleadows boundary); and, 3) elevation of a outer line was lowered to avoid multiple fittings. Building Official/Planner Ritc`,ey stated that he hau prepared a preliminary draft of the F.U.D. Lgreement so that the Developers could get the storm sewer installed before the weather turns bad. Bob Blanton stated that now that the Final Construction Drawings were completed and c}:ecked Sv Staff, they would like to get Planning Commission approval of the Final Development Plan. Building Official/Planner Ritchey quoted Section 17,63.090 of the Central Point Elunicipal Code stating "within six months following the approval of the Preliminary Development :lan, the applicant shall file with the Planning Comm-ission a Final Development flan containing in final form tile. information required in the Preliminary Development Plan.” Chairman Hillyer asked if the Final Development flan was complete enough for the Planning C=—issior. to Grant approval and forward it to the City Council. Building Official-/Planner i:itchey stated that there has not heen su ficient tine to review: it as yet. 1 1 Minutes Planning Com..mission P.ecting November 19, 19"10 - page 2 Chairman llillyer asked if a Resolution of .%:=oval coule be prepared by the December 41 19000 Council lleetins. Building Official/Planner Ritchey enswerrc'. that it could be prepared for the December 21 1980 Planning Commission llreting to be forwarded to the Council on December 4, 1980. Discussion. Motion by Himmelman, second by freeman to c'irect Staff to draft "esolution of Approval of the Final Development Plan for the Village Y.U.D. , to be reviewed at the December 2, 1920 Planning Commission Meeting. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. V. Old Business A. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 410, A Resolution of Recommendation of Denial of the Preliminary 1'1at for Cherry Park Subdivision. North 10th and Cherry Streets J.C. Iap rage 37-2'. -.2:.BC, Tax Lots 600, 1100 & 1400. City Zone/R-3, Comp Plan Designation/Iligh Density Residential Daniel & Victor Fosmatka and Gerald Corcoran, Applicants/Owners 7G5GIJYIG i"��) Chairman Hillyer read Resolution Ik1-9 into the record stating that the plat was denied as the cul-de-sac was twice the ength allowed by code, had the potential of having six times the number of dwelling units allowed by code, and that the regulations were for safety. !/d A ' Motion by Freeman, second by Ilimmelman to adopt Resolution # , Resolution of Recommendation of Denial of the Preliminary Plat for Cherry'' Park Subdivision. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. VI. New Business A. 106E Plan Review - Two Phase 4-Plex 125 Cedar St J.C. flap Page 37-214-11BB, Tax Lot 7701 City Zone/R-3, Comp Plan Designation/High Density Residential Richard Harmon, Owner/Applicant Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Staff Report stating that this .is a phase development project and that the applicant is asking for site plan approval for a 4-Flex with two units to be constructed now as Phase I with the second two units to be built at a later date, Mr. Ritchey continued, stating that the application complies with all applicable Municipal Codes with the exception of lot coverage and setbacks until such a time as the vacation, by the city, of 10 feet either side of Cedar Street can be assumed to be complete, as the existing lot area is less than that required for a 4-flex. . 11r. Ritchey presented the construction drawings describing the location of the first l Minutes Planning Commission Meeting November 13, 1930 - page 3 unit, the second unit and landscaping and stated that he had talked to a representative of the Farm and Home Loan Division of the Veterans Affairs Department of the State of Oregon and was told they had no problem with the idea of a 2 Phase 4-Plex. Commissioner Freeman asked if the parking area on the west side would be fenced. Building Official/Planner Ritchey answered that the Municipal Code requires a 6 foot screened fence or vegetative screen between the parking area and adjacent single family residences. Commissioner Freeman questioned the status of the 10 foot Cedar Street vacation. Building Official/Planner Ritchey answered that a condition of the L.I.D. was to vacate a 10 foot strip either side of Cedar Street and deed it to the property owners, and that the Council has had the first reading of the ordinance. Commissioner Himmelman stated that the Planning Commission should consider a time limit on this project. Commissioner Hood asked the applicant, Mr. Harmon, if 6 months would he sufficient. 1;r. Harmon answered that one year would be better as he plans to build the first 1 duplex, then build a spec home and after that build the second duplex. Chairman Hillyei addressed Mr. Marmon stating that what the Planning Commission is saying is that if lie builds within this time limit, that he would not have to return for a 1068 Plan Review for the second unit, and further stated that 6 months would be reasonable as the codes do change. Chairman Hiilyer asked what type of landscaping would be used and who would maintain it. Nr. Harmon answered that lawn, shrubs and a sprinkler system would be installed and that he will be living there and will maintain the landscaping. Notion by Freeman to approve this 1068 Plan Review subject to the conditions of the Staff Report and with a l year completion time. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that lie can see a problem there in getting the project completed by next winter, because weather or what have you could prevent completion, however, if the permit were issued within the time limit, he would comply. Commissioner Freeman withdrew the above mentioned motion and made a new motion to approve the 1063 Plan Review subject to the conditions of the Staff Report with. a 1 year time limit to obtain the Building Permit for Phase II. Second by Hood, Roll Call vote found all in favor, motion carried--. 1 1 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting November 18, 1980 - page 4 B. 1068 Plan Review - Sanctuary, 7th Day Adventists 625 N 10th J.C. Map Page 37-2W-3AD, Tax Lots 7000 & 7101 City Zone/R-1-7, Comp Plan Designation/Low Density Residential 7th Day Adventists Church, Owner/Applicant Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Staff Report stating that this application is for the construction of a new sanctuary seating 252 with church school rooms and for conversion of existing "temporary church" building to workshop; and, that this proposal is a revision of a plat submitted 30 November 1978, the concept of which was approved by the Planning Commission on 6 December 1978 with the following conditions: a) 6 foot screened fence or hedge between church property and adjacent residential area; b) drive and parking area to have base rock and dust free gravel surface with 3 years to complete A.C. paving. Mr. Ritchey continued, presenting the original 1978 plans and the present proposal, stating that this is just a site plan approval; that the building plans are being checked now but will have to go to Salem for Fire & Life Safety Review; that the only major change is that the main building has been moved forward to get parking in the rear and changed the traffic flow from circling the building to one entrance; and concluded by recommending approval. Joe LaVallee, 6475 Old Stage Road, Central Point, representing the applicant, stated that the sewer line is a common line shared by two churches with a maintenance agreement; that the property is already fenced, that the granite and gravel parking area is in existance and adequately lighted; and asked for a two year extension of the time limit to complete the A.C. paving. Commissioner Freeman asked about the storm drains to serve the project. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that at the present time the storm drain is just a ditch but at the time an L.I.D. is formed the storm drains will be installed and that this will return to the Planning Commission for review and the Planning Commission can require additional details at that time. Discussion Motion by Himmelman, second by Freeman to approve the 1068 Plan Review for the 7th Day Adventist' s Sanctuary, subject to the conditions of the 18 November Staff Report and subject to the conditions of the 6 December 1978 Planning Commission approval, except to change the time limitation to complete the A.C. paving to three years from the date of this approval. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Five minute recess called by Chairman Hillyer at 8:40 p.m. . Chairman Hillyer called the meeting back to order at 8:45 p.m. Iinutes Planning Commission Fleeting November 13, 1980 - page 5 C. Discussion of Church Occupancy as a Conditional Use in C_3 Zone 414 c Pine St J.C. Flap Page 37-2W-2CC, Tax Lot 6300 City Zone/C-3, Comp Plan Designation/General Commercial Virgil Osborn, Owner City Administrator Kucera stated that there have been several proposals to locate churches in the Commercial Zones so it was placed on the agenda for tonight; and, continued, stating that churches are a permitted use in the residential zones and residential uses are allowed as conditional uses in the commercial zones. Chairman Ilillyer questioned the relationship of churches to residential uses. City Administrator Kucera answered that the City Attorney' s opinion is that residential uses are restricted to dwellings and that if the intent was to allow all permitted uses, the ordinance would have read permitted uses rather than residential uses. Mr. Kucera continued, stating that the Planning Commission is actually considering two questions: 1) shall churches be a permitted use or an outright use if allowed in a commercial zone; and, 2) does the ordinance mean all permitted uses or just residential uses. Discussion followed. ' Chairman Ilillyer stated that fraternal organizations are conditional uses in C-1, C-2 and C_3 zones and that they are not included in the residential zones because of the drinking aspects of most of the organizations. Discussion followed. Commissioner Himmelman stated that churches are having more and more problems locating in residential zones. Discussion on the intent of the C_3 Zone. Virgil Orborn, owner of property located at 414 n Pine St, Central Point stated that the way the Central Point l:unicipal Code is written there is no place, other than a residential zone, in which a church can locate; that the ordinance in question states "residential uses"; that churches are unconditionally allowed in a residential zone; therefore, 1) churches should be allowed in a commercial zone under the heading "residential uses" or, 2) they should be allowed as a conditional use in some zones, depending upon the circumstances. Chairman Hillyer stated that to her, residential uses are: 1) single family, 2) two family, 3) multi-family and 4) boarding houses. Pastor Tom Culp, 640 Hermosa, Central Point stated that there are no used churches available so that only leaves building one; that they have been organized for 1 year and that for the first 6 months they met at Conger-Norris and the rest of the time at the Oddfellows Lodge; and that all this time they have been struggling with the problem of being limited to a location in a residential zone. Minutes Planning Commission I;eeting November 13, 1980 - page 6 Building Official/Planner Ritchey read from Section 17.40.030 of the Municipal Code stating that residential uses in the commercial zones are subject to the requirements of the requirements of the R-3 District, and that if a church was allowed to locate in C-3 as a residential use, it would have to meet all the requirements of the R-3 Zone including set-backs and so forth. Commissioner Hood stated that as it is not a permanent situation and a conditional use permit is reviewed every year, it should be allowed as a conditional use. Commission Himmelman agreed stating that rather than interpret residential uses, the city should allow a church as a conditional use. Chairman Hillyer stated that the purpose of the C_3 Zone as defined in the Central Point Nunicipal Code is to improve and protect the commercial aspects of the district; that allowing churches in the commercial zones is not in keeping with the stated intent of those zones; that if the city actually wants the downtown to be commercial we should promote its development as a commercial area. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that if this were allowed, it could snowball filling the available commercial buildings, which are scarce in Central Point, with churches rather than commercial uses. Virgil Osborn stated that the concern that churches will move into the downtown area is not very realistic; that the church cannot stay forever in this building; that they will eventually re-sell the property for a profit and give them a start on the way to their own chapel; and concluded by stating that he feels the city will have more than enough control if the church was allowed as a conditional use. Chairman Hillyer asked Mr. Osborn if he saw nothing wrong with ignoring the general purpose of the zone. Mr. Osborn answered that he felt the Planning Commission can, by imposing conditions on the use, make it .compatible with uses in the area. Commissioner Iiimmelnan stated that in her oponion a church does not belong in a core commercial area. City Administrator Kucera stated the Staff needs to know if the Planning Commission wants churches as a conditional use in the C-3 zone, or, should all permitted uses be conditional uses in C_3 zone,so that staff can answer those people who come in and try to make application. Commissioner Himmelman stated that part of the Planning Commission' s job is to look ahead and determine compatibility with zone and uses in that zone. City Administrator Kucera stated that because there is confusion, we need to change the ordinance if only to clarify what it now says. Discussion followed. i 1 P;inutes Planning Commission Necting November 18, 1980 - page 7 Motion by Hood, second by Hillyer to instruct Staff to draft a Resolution of Intent to Amend the Text of the 'Zoning Ordinance Deleting Residential Uses from the Conditional Uses in the C-3 Zone and a Resolution of Recommendation to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance Deleting Residential Uses from the Conditional Uses in the C_3 Zone. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. D. Review of Planning Commission Resolution k , A Resolution of Intent to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Certain :additional Uses in the Commercial and Industrial Zones of the City. E. Review of Planning Commission Resolution # , A Resolution of Recommendation to Amend the Text of the Zoning Ordinance to Allow Certain Additional Uses in the Commercial and Industrial Zones of the City. Planning Commission Secretary Stotler-de Ruyter read the above resolutions into the record stating that the changes were as follows: 1) §D, Storage and wholesaling of goods, was added to Section 17.36.030 as a conditional use in C-2 district; 2) JF, Retail outlets, was added to Section 17.52.020 as a permitted use in 11-2 district; and ...churches and similar religious institutions, provided that the off-street parking requirements of Section 17.64 can be met, was added to Section 17.40.030 as a conditional use in the C-3 district. ' Discussion followed. Motion by Hood to exclude §H & J of Section 17.40.030 and §F of Section 17.52.020. No second, motion died. Discussion followed. Motion by Hood to eliminate §H of Section 17.40.030, second by Himmelman. Discussion found that this had been accomplished by a previous motion. Motion withdrawn by Hood, second withdrawn by Himmelman. Motion by Himmelman, second by Freeman to table both resolutions to the December 2, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. VII. Miscellaneous hatters Thursday, November 20 is a joint study session with the Council on revising the fence ordinance. VIII. Notion by Himmelman, second by Hillyer to adjourn. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Adjournment came at 11:50 p.m.