Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 5, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1983 City Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Acting Chairman Ellard called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Commissioners Virgil Elbert, Garth Ellard, Jerry Mattey, Louise Novasad, and Charles Piland . Excused were Chairman Orrin Frederick who is attending school out of town, and Commissioner Ginger Bitterling who is ill . Also present were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmembers Jack Crumm and Donna Higginbotham, City Administrator David Kucera, Fire Chief/Building Official Don Paul , Citizens Advisory Committee members Grace Russell and Cliff Cordy, and Planning Commission Secretary Maureen Tanhoff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Piland made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 1 , 1983 Planning Commission Meeting as typed. Commissioner Novasad seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Elbert, yes ; Mattey, yes ; Novasad, yes ; Piland, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence was brought before the Planning Commission at this meeting. PUBLIC APPEARANCES No public appearances were made at this Planning Commission Meeting. BUSINESS A. Request for the Planning Commission to decide on a Variance to allow a five foot high fence to be constructed on the property line at Central Point Elementary School , 450 South Fourth Street, Central Point, Oregon, further described as Jackson County Assessor's Map No. 37 2W 11B6 Tax Lot 6700. Building Official Paul read staff report dated March 11 , 1983 and outlined Exhibits A through E. There were no conflicts of interest expressed by the Planning Commission mem- bers . Acting Chairman Ellard asked if there was anyone present who would like t to address the Planning Commission in favor of this request. Rod Groshong, Superintendent of School District No. 6, came forward to repre- sent the School Board. He stated that the issue of placing a fence around Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 2 the playground at Central Point Elementary School was first raised in February of 1982 by the parents of some of the children attending the school and of children participating in Little League after school hours . The safety of the children became a point of discussion due to the children being prone to chas- ing balls into the street endangering them of being hit by cars. The Schocl Board and Parent/Teacher Organization have decided the solution would be the erection of a five foot high fence of nine gauge chain link. The height would only be 18 inches higher than the 3-1 /2 feet allowed by the Ordinance, but would make a big difference in child safety. In regard to access for emergency vehicles , it would be a three-sided fence which would leave the driveway on Fourth Street and access on Second Street between the end of the fence and the building. Commissioner Novasad expressed her concern that the children may hurt them- selves by running into the fence when chasing balls. In response to Commissioner Elbert 's question about emergency access, Mr. Groshong explained that the pedestrian openings would not have gates but would be "shielded openings" consisting of short lengths of fence a few feet behind the openings . He emphasized that the fencing would be three-sided leaving as much access as is there currently for emergency vehicle ingress and egress. Councilmember Higginbotham came forward. She called the Planning Commission's attention to the fact that she, as a Councilmember, has never been and is not now in favor of a 3-1/2 foot high fence. It is her opinion that a five foot fence would be better to prevent the children from climbing over it easily. Jane Becker, Chairman of the Parent/Teacher Organization, came forward. It is her opinion that a 3-1/2 foot fence would be an enticement for the children to climb over it. She also stated that balls would go right over it because the playground is on higher ground than the fence would be. Playground supervision is also difficult as it is a large area (five acres or more) . The Parent/ Teacher Organization is raising the funds to erect the fence and is not asking the school district for monetary assistance. She stated she knows of people who have 3-1/2 foot fences at their homes and their children climb over them regularly. In regard to the children running into the fence, she feels that would be a lot less harmful than getting hit by a car. Mary Hackwell came forward and stated he has a 4-1/2 foot high fence at his home and children are always climbing over it. He is very much in favor of a five foot high fence at Central Point Elementary School . Carolyn Chancellor, Co-Chairman of the Parent/Teacher Organization, came for- 'ward. She telephoned several principals of schools in the Medford School Dis- trict to ask how high of.afence they would prefer. They stated that a five foot high fence would be most adequate as it would provide a better safety barrier and discourage climbing. Ms . Chancellor stated she knows a woman who is able to lift her 50 lb. daughter over her 3-1 /2 foot high fence at home without any Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 3 difficulty. She stated that one principal (Hoover School ) said their school had a five foot high fence, and another principal commented that if he had been principal when their shorter fence was erected, he would have recommended a five foot high fence instead. There being no one else to speak -in favor of the request, Acting Chairman Ellard asked if there was anyone who would like to address the Planning Com- mission in opposition to the variance request. Patrick Henderson, 360 South Second Street, Central Point, came forward. He stated he is against the variance request that would allow a five foot high fence to be constructed at Central Point Elementary School because it is located in a residential neighborhood and he feels that since the residents have to abide by the zoning regulations for the residential district, the school should too . He stated the Planning Commission should bear in mind that the residents will have to look at the .fence too, and he feels it would be unsightly in the neighborhood . Mr. Henderson contended that a 3-1/2 foot high fence would be sufficient to stop ball-chasing into the street because, in his opinion, most of them are from soccer games and close to the ground. Commission Piland noted that there would be a considerable amount of unused space between the fence and the sidewalk and curbs due to the fence being set on the property line. Mr. Henderson pointed out that the school serves as the only park type area in the vicinity and is heavily used as such by residents in the neighborhood. He stated he doesn 't feel the Planning Com- mission has sufficient reasons to grant the Variance. Acting Chairman Ellard stated that if the Planning Commission decides to grant the Variance, the decision will be based on the request meeting the conditions set forth in the Ordinance. Acting Chairman Ellard asked the Commission to note the findings of fact as listed in Municipal Code Section 17 .80.010, D. , as follows : 1 . The Variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the City; 2. The Variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the City; 3. The Variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the City; 4. The Variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the City; 5. The Variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; 6. The Variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. There was considerable discussion as .to ways in which the appearance of the fence line could be beautified with landscaping done in such a manner as to not block visibility. Planning Commission Meeting Apri1 .5, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 4 Superintendent Groshong explained that the Parent/Teacher Organization would be paying for the fence and the landscaping to come later, but they did not have the authority to apply for the Variance; therefore, the school district made application on their behalf. Commissioner Piland asked Fire Chief Paul if the access for emergency vehicles as described tonight would meet the Fire Department 't requirements . Chief Paul stated that as long as the Fire Department had adequate space for their apparatus to get in, he approved. Commissioner Piland made a motion that the Planning Commission find in favor of the requested Variance as a result of the findings of fact Nos . 1 through 6 of Municipal Code Section 17.80.010, D. , listed herein, being met; with the condition that there will be the openings in the fence as discussed tonight to meet the specifications of Fire Chief Paul . Commissioner Elbert seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Elbert, yes ; Mattey, yes; Novasad, yes; Piland, yes . All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. B. Public Meeting for the Planning Commission to consider the request for annexation of the Boes Subdivision . Don Paul introduced Mr. Mike Lanier to the Commission who came forward. He is a planning consultant representing Mr. E. C. Brittsan and other applicants of the Boes Subdivision. He has prepared an annexation application packet which he outlined for the Planning Commission. He pointed out that there is an error pertaining to the total acreage involved; the packet states it as 27 .29 acres when in actuality it is 45 acres . Mr. Lanier stated that this application has been prompted by a health hazard created by the private water system that currently serves the Boes Subdivision. There have been water tests that have not met D.E.Q. or Jackson County standards. The United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of Oregon and Jackson County have all recommended that the Boes Subdivision connect to the City of Central Point water system. As a matter of record, Don Paul read into the record Exhibit B on page 50 which is copy of Notice of Public Meeting published in the Medford Mail Tri- bune on March 25 and April 1 , 1983, and posted in City Hall , the City Fire Station, the City _Library, and the City Post Office. There were no conflicts of interest expressed by the Planning Commissioners , and Acting Chairman Ellard declared the Public Meeting open. Mayor Jones pointed out that the matter before the Planning Commission tonight is the annexation which must be decided before the connection to the City's water system can be accomplished. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 5 Mr. Lanier explained that hopefully a grant will be obtained to fund the con- nection to Central Point's water system. If that is not successful , possibly a local improvement district could be formed to bear the cost. It was pointed out that the present Central Point citizens would not be paying additional taxes to fund the connection of the Boes Subdivision to the City 's water system. No one spoke in opposition to the request for annexation of the Boes Subdivision, and Acting Chairman Ellard declared the Public Meeting closed. Mayor Jones stated that Ron Hough of Rogue Valley Council of Governments is pre- paring a Community Development Block Grant Application for approximately $250,000. Acting Chairman Ellard pointed out that the Boes Subdivision has been included in Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary with the intention of annexation at some point in the future. Commissioner Piland asked if the Central Point water system was adequate to ser- vice the Boes Subdivision. Mayor Jones stated that it will be once a water line is constructed that will run under the freeway. Commissioner Piland made a motion that the Planning Commission adopt the appli- cant's findings of fact and recommend by Resolution No. 70 that the City of Central Point.CttyCouncil approve annexation of a parcel of property commonly referred to as the Boes Subdivision on Upton Road of approximately 45 acres contiguous to the City of Central Point, and withdraw such property from Jackson County Fire District No . 3 and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority. Commis- sioner Elbert seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Elbert, yes; Mattey, yes; Novasad, yes; Piland, yes . All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. A recess was called at 8:20 p.m. Acting Chairman Ellard called the meeting back to order at 8:43 p.m. C. Public Meeting for the Planning Commission to consider the request for Minor Land Partition by James A. Cochran for land located on the west side of Snowy Butte Lane further described as Jackson County Map Page 37 2W 10 Tax Lot 3903. Don Paul read staff report dated March 25, 1983, and presented Exhibit C, which is a diagram of the property in question. He also read the Notice of Public Meeting which was posted at City Hall , the City Fire Station, the City Post Of- fice, and the City Library; and published March 25 and April 5, 1983, in the Medford Mail Tribune. Acting Chairman Ellard stated there is a conflict of interest where he is con- cerned as Mr. Cochran is an insurance client of his, but as Acting Chairman, he will not be voting on the matter. He then declared the Public Meeting open. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 6 Mr. Cochran came forward and stated at the last Planning Commission Meeting Ron Hough had presented a map indicating a "master plan" for possible future development of the Snowy Butte area. He has tried to devise a plan to divide his property to conform to Mr. Hough 's concept in that he would build on the property positioning the structures in such a way to leave adequate space for possible future road access through the property. The owners at the time the access is developed would deal with the matter when it arises. Acting Chairman Ellard asked Mr. Cochran if he would be willing to give an easement on the property at this time as a condition of the Minor Land Parti- tion . Mr. Cochran replied that he did not want to encumber his property in this way as it would restrict its salability. Another property owner in the area, Jim Scott, came forward. He asked about the possibility of creating a culdesac at the end of Joseph Street. City Administrator Kucera stated Joseph Street, which is the access in question when extended in the future, is already too long to end in a culdesac. The Planning Commission also needs to consider the matter of who is to pro- vide the curbs and gutters when development takes place, and City Administra- tor Kucera stated that a local improvement district could be formed by the property .owners . Mr. Cochran stated he checked with the "someone" in the City offices who assured him that he would not have to provide curbs and gutters as part of his development. Commissioner Piland asked Mr. Cochran if he would be willing to develop the two front lots leaving the back one bare. Mr. Cochran stated he could not do this because the back lot would be landlocked. Commissioner Novasad made a motion to table the matter until staff puts it back on an agenda so that staff may first meet with the property owners involved to discuss further the development of this area to create a traffic pattern that will not interfere with any property owner's right to develop. Commissioner Piland seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Elbert, yes; Mattey, yes; Novasad, yes ; Piland, yes . All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. D. Rogue Valley Development Group informational discussion on condominium development plan. There was no one present at this meeting to represent Rogue Valley Develop- ment Group. MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous matters brought before the Planning Commission at this meeting. Planning Commission Meeting April 5, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 7 ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Piland made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Elbert seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Elbert, yes ; Mattey, yes; Novasad, yes; Piland, yes . All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Acting Chairman Ellard adjourned the meeting at 9: 28 p.m.