Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 3, 1981 1 Minutes February 3, 1981 - Planning Commission Meeting Central Point Council Chambers I. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Hillyer at 7:00 p.m. II. Roll call found Chairman Hillyer and Commissioners Havice, Freeman, Hood and Himmelman present. Absent was Commissioner Novasad. Others present were City Administrator Dave Kucera, Building Official/Planner R.S. Ritchey, City Council Members Donna Higginbotham and Judi Miller, Citizens Advisory Committee Chairman Grace Russell, Ron Hough R.V.C.O.G. and Planning Commission Secretary Georg Stotler-de Ruyter. III. Motion by Himmelman, second by Freeman to approve the Minutes of the January 20, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting as written. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. IV. A. No Correspondence B. No Public Appearances V. Old Business A. Final Plat Review - Stonecreek Subdivision II, Farnsworth Drive Building Official/Planner Ritchey displayed a full plat of Stonecreek II; pointed out the area being considered at this meeting; and stated that all changes required at previous reviews of the plat have been made and all conditions set have been incorporated into the Final Plat now presented. Commissioner Himmelman asked if the development of this area would result in Annabel Smiths property being landlocked. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that there is access to said property however, if it were to be developed as a subdivision then access would have to be larger than the existing. Building Official/Planner Ritchey continued, stating that one change had been made on the Final Plat that was not on previous plats and that the Planning Commission would have to act on 8iis item. This was changing the name of 150 to 160 feet of Chicory Lane located within Stonecreek II, to Chicory Street. Verlyn Thomas, Surveyor, 304 S Holly St, Medford, representing the applicant stated that his office found that Chicory Lane was dedicated in 1910 and to have the name of the street totally changed would be more confusing than calling this one block length Chicory Street until such a time as the street is developed to the north and connected, and then call the entire street Chicory. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1981 - Page 2 Chairman Hillyer stated that confusion can exist when two streets are similarly named and to consider new people or visitors to the area calling for fire or police protection only knowing it as "Chicory". Verlyn Thomas stated that Chicory and Snowy Butte are such old streets that most people know where they are. Discussion. Chairman Hillyer suggested that as Chicory developed it would become an extension of Farnsworth Drive. Verlyn Thomas stated that Farnsworth is basically a north-south street and may lend itself better to the situation; and that a termination point for Timothy can be shown on the Final Plat. Commissioner Hood asked if the 20 feet shown on the plat as Chicory was in the subdivision boundary. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the 20 foot right-of-way was not 0 in the boundary of Stonecreek II but that there was a 12 foot bermed and planted buffer strip along that portion of Chicory Lane which borders Stonecreek Subdivision. Discussion. Motion by Havice, second by Himnelman to approve the Final Plat of Stonecreek II with the recommendation that Chicory Lane be named Farnsworth Drive as it develops. Roll call vote found Chairman Hillyer and Commissioners Havice, Freeman and Himmelman in favor, Commissioner Hood opposed. Majority in favor, motion carried. B. Fence Alteration - Quality Insulation 106 Amy Street J.C. Map Page 37-2W-10AA, Tax Lot 5400 City Zone/M-1, Comp Plan Designation/Light Industrial Don McGrew, Applicant Don McGrew, 1467 Gibbon Road, Central Point, Applicant appeared, stating that they have had a lot of materials and fuel stolen from their yard and because of the slats in the fence the vandals cannot be seen. Chairman Hillyer stated that at the time the slatted fence was required by the Planning Commission, she believed they were storing much more material. Don McGrew stated that it was pretty messy then. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the property is zoned M-1; that Section 17.48.030 states: "A. All raw materials, finished products, machinery and equipment except trucks and motor vehicles shall be stored within an entirely enclosed building or sight-obscuring, non-pierced fence not less than six feet Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1981 - Page 3 in height;" and concluded, stating that as he interpreted this section if only trucks and motor vehicles were stored outside, there would be no requirement for a sight obscuring fence. Don McGrew stated that they had some lath and chicken wire in a 15 foot by 15 foot area right behind the office, a trash dumpster and an engine in the yard. Chairman Hillyer stated that the Planning Commission must go by the Municipal Code, therefore the lath in the fence must stay unless only motor vehicles are stored in the yard. Commissioner Freeman asked if security dogs had been considered. Don McGrew stated that it is necessary to keep dogs separate from everyone, all the time, and that someone has to feed them 7 days a week. Chairman Hillyer stated that she would like this to be conditioned to replace the slats if materials were to be stored outside again. Commissioner Himmelman stated that perhaps two fenced areas was not out of the question, one slatted surrounding a small area of stored materials inside the existing fenced yard. Motion by Himmelman, second by Hood to allow the requested fence alteration as long as the Municipal Code is complied with in that nothing but trucks and motor vehicles are to be stored in the exposed yard. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. C. 1068 Plan Review - Solar Greenhouse Addition 322 N Third St J.C. Map Page 37-2W_3DA, Tax Lot 11800 City Zone/R-3, Comp Plan Designation/Medium Density Residential Judi Miller, Applicant Judi Miller, Applicant stated that this solar greenhouse will be primarily used for heating and will have 55 gallon drums along the wall of the house, inside the greenhouse, to store the sun's energy. Building Official/Planner Ritchey presented the Staff Report stating that greenhouses are permitted as an accessory to residential uses; and that issuance of the Building Permit will be subject to Building Department review of load calculations for glass roof panels. Discussion. Motion by Havice, second by Freeman to approve this 1068 Plan Review subject to Staff Report. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1981 - Page 4 D. 1068 Plan Review - Arcade Drive-Through 163 S Front St J.C. Map Page 37-2W-10AA, Tax Lot 3900 City 'Lone/C-2, Comp Plan Designation/Commercial General Harvey Hueners & Tom Wall, Applicants Harvey Hueners, Applicant, stated that he has assumed control of the Arcade Drive-In; would like to put in a drive-through with access from Front Street, around the building through the alley and back to Front Street; that the worker will control the cars going through the alley; and that there will be tables inside as well. Commissioner Freeman questioned the off-street parking. Mr. Hueners stated that there will be parking under the canopy and on either side of the lot. Commissioner Havice asked about the people parked under the canopy being blocked if there is a line for the drive-through. Mr. Hueners stated that he felt there will be room. Commissioner Freeman questioned the cars coming around a blind corner of the building into the alley. Mr. Hueners stated that a light system will be installed that will keep the cars from entering the alley until an operator, who can see the traffic flow all around the building, advances the car; and, that the operator will be in a bay window to provide full vision. Council Member Higginbotham asked if it would be possible to make the alley one way. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the Police Chief feels that one way alleys are very difficult to enforce. Building Official/Planner Ritchey then presented the Staff Report, stating that the only alteration to the existing building is to install a pick-up/delivery window and an intercom order station; that the Planning Commission should determine if the use of the alley for this purpose is in the best interest of the public; and, that the Planning Commission should establish a general policy on whether or not to encourage drive-up windows. Chairman Hillyer stated that she had a problem with the public right-of-way being used for private enterprise and that she thought it should be maintained for a public right-of-way. Commissioner Havice stated that she had problems with traffic coming from the south through the alley as it could create traffic problems. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1981 - Page 5 Commissioner Himmelman stated that she used the old restaurant and did use the alley to exit, but turned away from the building; and that she also used the alley for access to the car wash. Chairman Hillyer stated that during Little League season she has often seen 15 cars leave the ball field and meet at this location. C.A.C. Chairman Russell stated that no matter who ran the old restaurant, it was always packed. Mr. Hueners stated that this proposal was an attempt to please the State in getting the traffic off the highway, but that he understands the Planning Commissions concerns and will go back to the drawing board. Motion by Himmelman, second by Havice to hold this application in abeyance until further information is presented. Roll call vote found Chairman Hillyer and Commissioners Havice, Hood and Himmelman in favor. Commissioner Freeman opposed. Majority in favor, motion carried. 10 minute recess called at 8:25 p.m. by Chairman Hillyer. Meeting called back toorderat 8:30 p.m. by Chairman Hillyer. ' E. Review - "All & B 1' Classifications of Non-conforming uses. Building Official/Planner Ritchey read a description of "A" & "B" Classifications stating that certain non-conforming situations should be given preferred treatment simply because they are popular and useful and would be given an "A" classification; that all non-conforming uses or structures not classified "A" are Class "B". Mr. Ritchey continued, describing the procedures for obtaining a "Class All designation, stating that a written application would be required with the burden of proof being on the applicant who shall submit findings and reasons for the change in class; and that the filing fee, notice and hearings procedure would be the same as for a variance. City Administrator Kucera stated that Ron Hough had explained that the Zone Map would be adopted first, then the City would classify all "A" & "B" uses, then the procedure described by Building Official/Planner Ritchey would be used to change classifications if warranted. Commissioner Havice asked who in the City would be responsible for establishing the classifications. City Administrator Kucera answered that it would be the Planning Commissions job. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that if the City classifys uses "A" or "B", the Class "A" would not have to apply for a class change but it still is a non-conforming use and under the present Municipal Code it could not be expanded. Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1981 - Page 6 Chairman Hillyer suggested changing the non-conforming use section to read "with the exception of Class "A" designations." City Administrator Kucera stated if the Planning Commission adopts this change, the non-conforming use section would also be changed. Ron Hough, R.V.C.O.G. stated that Staff would probably set criteria for "A" & "B", based on individual merits; and that the whole purpose of the "A" & "B" system is to try to maintain the stability of residences in commercial districts so they are kept up or improved; and that we are trying to avoid the kind of deterioration that so often happens. Chairman Hillyer asked if it would not be easier to re-do the non-conforming use section of the Municipal Code. City Administrator Kucera stated that this change would probably be inserted in the non-conforming use section as "B" uses would still be non-conforming. Ron Hough stated that the "A" & "B" classification gives the City more flexibility than straight non-conforming uses. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that if a conversion or addition makes the use less non-conforming, it can be allowed under present Municipal Code. Chairman Hillyer stated that she still felt it would be putting a lot of power in the hands of Staff or the Planning Commission or whoever ended up classifying the uses. City Administrator Kucera stated that the City has three choices: 1) Have non- conforming uses, 2) "A" & "B" Classification System, 3) Allow any existing building or use to expand; and that 1 and 2 will always produce conflicts while 3 brings up the question, "why have zoning." Commissioner Himmelman stated that she feels it should be a graceful change; asked if residences could not be included as a permitted use if it were in existence at the time the change occurs; and asked if the "A" & "B" system would put a greater load on the Building Department. Building Official/Planner Ritchey stated that the structures would have to be inspected to see if they could be re-constructed; and that he also thought adopting the "A" & "B" Classification System would give the Planning Commission more flexibility than the present method of treating non-conforming uses. Chairman Hillyer stated that criteria, the rules of the game, need to be established to allow this to happen. Ron Hough stated that every city in Oregon is going through this same process; that 99 out of 100 will continue the non-conforming use and phase them out; and that the intent of the "A" & "B" System is to defer the phasing out of a good solid non-conforming use and allow selected uses to continue. 1 Minutes Planning Commission Meeting February 3, 1981 - Page 7 The consensus was to embrace the concept of the "A" & "B" Classification System and further consider said system after Staff develops criteria. VII. Miscellaneous Matters A. Corrections to the Minutes of the January 27, 1981 Planning Commission Study Session regarding permitted and conditional uses in the commercial zones were as follows: 1) 17.36.020(B)11, was not deleted, although shown as such; 2) 17.36.020(B)10, was deleted as a permitted use and added as a conditional use; 3) 17.36.030, new and used car sales was added as a conditional use. VIII. Motion by Havice, second by Himmelman to adjourn. Roll call vote found all in favor, motion carried. Adjournment came at 10:02 p.m.