Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 7, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1.981 City Hall Council Chambers The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jean Hillyer at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present were Commissioners George Freeman, Dewane Hood, Louise Novasad, and Dana Peters. City Councilmembers present were Mayor Don Jones, Donna Higginbotham and Ron Holmgren. City Staff present were Administrator David Kucera, Fire Chief Dave Penicook and Planner Ron Hough. Also present was Citizens Advisory Committee Chairman Grace Russell. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to approve the March 17, 1981 Planning Commission Minutes as typed. A second was made by Commissioner Novasad. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no people present for public appearances. 0 NEW BUSINESS A Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for an Appliance and Small Engine Repair Chairman Hillyer noted that there had been an error in the publication of the notice for this meeting. She asked if there were any objections from the audience or members of the Planning Commission to waive the irregu- larity and continue the public hearing. None were received. Chairman Hillyer opened the public hearing. Chief Penicook read for the record that this public hearing was an application by W. L. Mefford, for an appliance and small engine repair shop at his residence, 523 South First Street, Central Point, Oregon; Jackson County Tax Map 37 2W 11BC, Tax Lot 500. Chief Penicook read the notice of the public meeting provided in the Medford Mail Tribune and noted that there was an error in the date. For the record, Chief Penicook entered the March 26, 1981 statement from the applicant; marked Exhibit 1 . The applicant's signed application form; marked Exhibit 2. The map showing the location of the lot; marked Exhibit 3. A petition of approval dated March 12, 1981; marked Exhibit 4. Chairman Hillyer asked the Planning Commission to make any declarations of conflict or ex parte contact. There were none. Chief Penicook read, for the record, his 4/07/81 Staff Report to Chairman Hillyer and Planning Commission Members. This was marked Exhibit #5. Page 2 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1981 Chairman Hillyer asked for proponents. W.L. Mefford stated that all important items were pretty well spelled out in his application and in the Staff report. He stated he was living on a fixed income and needed to have additional income to make ends meet as he is partially disabled. She'asked for further proponents. There were none. She asked for opponents. There were none. Chairman Hillyer asked for questions by the Planning Commission. In the discussion that followed Mr. Mefford stated that he would like to have at least one garage sale per month. He also stated that he plans to use his garage as a shop with workbench and tools, therefore, he will have to park his vehicle in the street at times. Ron Hough noted that the proposed conditions for home occupations were very restrictive. This zone is also planned on the Comprehensive Plan to be commercial uses related to the hospital. The use of a garage as a home occupation would not be permitted in the proposed regulations. A discussion followed on how many yard sales Mr. Mefferd had held in the past year. Mr. Mefferd stated that he could agree to limiting the number of yard sales to that required by ordinance, except it would create a hard- ship because he would be required to sell his merchanidse at other places. His intention was to repair items for resale at his residence. Commissioner Hood stated that he agreed there should not be continuous yard sales, however, he did feel that the City could allow continuing sales of the repaired items if there were no yard sale signs. Commissione' Novasad agreed with- this concept: Mayor Jones suggested that in consideration of the proposed new regulations for home occupancy uses that the Planning Commission put a condition on this request that the permit would expire within one (1) year. This would allow Planning Commission review in the future. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to approve the requested Conditional Use Permit for a Home Occupation, and to limit the number of yard sales at the residence to conform with City ordinances, and to stipulate that the Conditional Use Permit will expire within one year, and to adopt the Staff Findings and Recommendations. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Hood. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Public Meeting for a Street and Alley Vacation in the Cooksey Addition Chairman Hillyer opened the public meeting. Chief Penicook entered the City Council Resolution X6334 which initiated the Vacation Proceedings for a portion of Alder Street into the record as Planning Commission Exhibit X61. He stated that notices had been provided in the Mail Tribune of the Planning Commission Meeting in accordance with this resolution. In addition, notices had been mailed or delivered to propertyowners within the affected area which was 400 feet east and we and 200 feet north and south of the proposed Vacation. A total of 21 notices were mailed. page 3 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1981 meeting Chairman Hillyer asked if there were any declaration of conflict of interests or ex parte contact. There were none. Chief Penicook gave a verbal staff report by stating that the Public Works Department has asked for a right-of-way and easement for a storm drain and PP&L over a portion of the proposed Vacation. The Police Department and Fire Department have no particular problem with the proposed Vacation. The Staff did not have any specific recommendations. Carl Krick; Attorney, stated that he was respresenting Bob Ashenberner and Dave Ashenberner who were present in the audience and owners of Ashenberner Moulding Company. Also present in the audience was Bob Ganten- bein, Consulting Engineer with Marquess and Marquess Associates. Mr. Krack stated that the street and alley were not presently being put to any sufficant use by anyone. He was simply asking that the City allow them to put the land to use. He presented a Site map, marked Exhibit #2. He explained the map which detailed the proposed uses on the property, defined the existing neighboring uses and existing zones. He noted that of the 21 notices that were sent to the owners within the affected area a large portion of those owners lived across the tracks and Highway 99. Many of these people don't even have access to the proposed vacated streets. He noted that there have been other previous vacations in the area. He entered photographs of the existing area as Exhibits #3, #4, #5 and X66. He entered as Exhibit #7 the City's previous Comprehensive Plan which shows this area was intended to be used as LLI. He noted that in a vacation proceeding the land goes back to the adjacent owners. Mr. Krack entered as Exhibit #8 a consent agreement signed by Robert and Genevieve Ashenberner. As Exhibit #9 he entered a consent agreement signed by Donnie McGrew. As Exhibit #10 he entered a signed and notarized easement to the City of Central Point for use of the alley for storm drain and public utilities. Mr. Krack stated that the if the vacation occurs Mr. Ashenberner will spend money and make improvements to the property. He noted that the M-1 zone requires fencing and side screening. The site plan identifies how- the area will be used. Bob Gantenbein reviewed the proposed site plan and explained the proposed fencing, gates, access, proposed paving, parking and noted that the site plan left a straight through area where the street is currently located which will be used to allow trucks to drive through. He explained the proposed waste disposal and light vehicle maintenance and identified how the storage areas were being modified to meet the zoning regulations. Mr. Krack gave a history of Ashenberner Moulding Company's past growth. As Exhibit #11 he entered a photograph which showed a sign notifying truckers of the hours Haskell Street is open to truck traffic. This picture was intended to exhibit Mr. Ashenberner's cooperation with the City. page 4 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1981 meeting Mr. Gantenbein gave a brief history of Ashenberner's cooperation and compliance with noise control standards. As Exhibit #12 Mr. Krack entered 4 pages of Findings which stated were accepted by the Council in a recent rezone request in the area. The Findings stated that an adverse impact was not created. As Exhibit #13 Mr. Krack entered a letter to Gregory A. Parker concerning. insulation for cyclone blowers. He stated that Mr. Ashenberner intends to put the land to productive use. As Exhibit #14 Mr. Krack submitted a two-page letter defining money spent by Ashenberner Moulding in Central Point in 1979 and CentraloPoirx area donations and Central Point Girls Little League ball team. He noted that Ashenberner paid $85,000 among more than 53 local businesses, and made donations to the Girls' Little League. Mr. Krack stated that the street is not being used and the City should not, hide such a valuable asset. Mr. Ashenberner has a twenty. year track record and he will be the area to good productive use, providing a positiv, benefit to the community. Chairman Hillyer asked if there were any other proponents. There were none. Chairman Hillyer asked if there were any opponents. ' Mrs. Miller, 248 Hiatt Lane, Central Point stated that there are five families who live in the area. Their yards do not look like the pictures shown by Mr. Ashenberner. (Exhibits 3, 4, 5, and 6). The pictures were not recent and were taken before Mrs. Korbol sold her property to Mr. Ashenberner. No grass is shown in the pictures. Mrs. Miller also stated that she had heard Ashenberner was going out of business. She stated that she uses Hiatt Lane every day and when a fire occurs as has in the past, the streets will be needed to help fight that fire. She stated that all the people in the area feel the same as she does. The City presently maintains the streets. Chairman Hillyer asked for other opponents . Chief Penicook stated that the City had received letters in opposition from 9 people who represented 12 of the 21 parcels in the affected area. The Exhibits were as follows: Exhibit #15 Mr. and Mrs. Cleo L. McDowell, 210 Snowy Butte Road, Central Pt. Exhibit #16 Mrs. Y. Wharfield, 260 Hiatt Lane, Central Point Exhibit #17 James E. Hutson, Grange Co-Op. , Central Point Exhibit #18 George and Ruby Morisette, 261 Hiatt Lane, Central Point Exhibit #19 Mr. and Mrs. T. D. Miller,248 Hiatt Lane, Central Point Exhibit #20 Floyd Shepherd, 1914 14th Street, Medford Exhibit #21 E. S V. Fuerstenberg, 114 Haskell St. , Central Point Exhibit #22 Eunice M. Richardson, propertyowner of 110 So. Haskell, Centr Exhibit #23 James F. Jones, Jr. , 112 Haskell Street, Central Point, and Antonia L. Jones Exhibit #24 L. W. Calvert, 249 Hiatt Lane, Central Point Exhibit #25 Walt. W. Miller and June L. Miller , 209 Snowy Butte Road, C.P. (Exhibits 15 S 16 not in affected area but were in opposition. ) Attorney Krack asked that the location of the properties owned by the people objecting to the vacation to be identified. Page 5 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1981 Meeting Commissioner Freeman noted that all of these people were responding because they were within the affected area. Chief Penicook stated that two of the people who sent letters were from , outside the affected area. (McDowell and Wharfield) Chief Penicook entered Exhibit #26 which. was a map showing the locations of those propertyowners notified with a circle around a letter representing those propertyowners which responded. Chairman Hillyer asked if there were any further opponents. There were none. Chairman Hillyer asked if there were any further proponents. Attorney Krack stated that Ashenberner was not going out of business. He noted. that the people objecting to the vacation lived primarily across the street and track. Chairman Hillyer asked Mr. Krack to state his opinion why the people objected. Mr. Krack stated that he had no way of knowing. He felt the"Grange Co- Op had no interest in the vacation. The Public Utility Commissioner is currently closing as many railroad crossings as possible. Mr. Krack reviewed the locations where people lived who had objected to the vacation. He questioned why these people would use Alder Street. He indicated that there possibly was an occasional use of Hiatt Lane. Apparently there has been no problems in the past with other vacations. He felt it was conceiv- able that Hiatt Lane would be used and not Alder Street. Commissioner Freeman asked Mr. Krack why he is saying these Lanes are not utilized when the photograph Exhibits show tracks indicating that the streets are obviously used. Mr. Krack responded by stating that the Ashenberner employees, cars and delivery trucks do use the Street and alley. Chairman Hillyer next asked if anyone in the audience had any questions. There were none. Commissioner Novasad asked if the streets that are vacated will the people have the right to use them. Mr. Krack responded that Alder Street would be closed. He saw no reason why Hiatt Lane could not be used. It is open for PP&L and storm drain easement and trucks will be running back and forth along this alley. He felt that Mr. Ashenberner would not object if the gates were left open for people to use. Chairman Hillyer asked if the gates were going to be left open for people to use the alley then why would it then need to be vacated. Mr. Krack responded that if it is vacated, then Ashenberner can do what he wants to the surface without asking the City, or building a street to Page 6 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1981 Meeting City standards. The Moulding Company now uses the alley for forklift travel. The forklift comes down Amy Street onto Hiatt Lane and then int the Storage Yard. He stated that Mr. McGrew also wants to keep Hiatt Lane open for his use. Responding to a question, Chief Penicook stated that he was not here when the log deck in the area caught on fire. However, the principal access for his Fire Department would be Amy and Haskell Street. He sees no problem because the Fire Department would use Alder Street to turn around. Chairman Hillyer asked if there were any further questions. There were none. She closed the public hearing. Administrator Kucera reminded the Commission that ORS 271.120 requires a determination on whether the public interest is served or not by the vacation. Chairman Hi-llyer stated that the burden of proof is on the applicant that a vacation would be in the best interest of the public. Commissioner Freeman noted that even though one person representing the public in the audience tonight, that 9 people representing 12 of the 21 affected properties chose to respond and voice objections to the proposed vacation. A motion was made by Commissioner- Freeman to recommend to the°Council- that they deny both the Street and Alley Vacation because the applicant has not proved that the public interest is best-served, whereas 9 owners representing 12 of the affected 21 properties have demonstrated a desire to maintain the street and alley. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Novasad. Commissioners Freeman, Hillyer, Hood and Novasad voted yes. Commissioner Peters abstained. The motion was approved. Chairman Hillyer called a break at 9:23 P.M. and called the meeting back to order at 9:33 P.M. Stoncreek III Subdivision Administrator Kucera explained that the developer proposed to do the construction on this project first and then ask the Planning Commission to approve the Final Plat. This method would allow him to proceed without posting a bond for completion. The Planning Commission was asked to review the proposed revised construction drawings. And asked if they had any concerns relating to the construction for improvements being done prior to a review of the Final Plat. A lengthy discussion followed in which the Planning Commission discussed whether or not to ask the developers of Stonecreek III to resubmit or to approve the existing preliminary plans and construction drawings and final plats. It was noted that there were several variances granted in Phase I of Stonecreek Subdivision and that variances would likely to be needed in Phases II and III. The Planning Commission felt that the variances should not be granted. It was pointed out the original prelim- inary plat which was approved originally should probably be recognized as valid and giving the developer a certain number of lots for the proposed project. Page 7 Planning Commission Minutes April 7, 1981 Meeting At 10:00 P.M. a motion was made by Commissioner Hillyer to extend the meeting for one hour. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Freeman. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. The discussion continued on whether or not the Planning Commission should review the original Preliminary Plat or review the proposed request for variances or review the construction drawings proposed now and review the Final Plats at a later date. It was noted that the Planning Commission minutes of previous meetings had indicated that the construction drawings and Final Plats for both Phase II and Phase III had been previously approved. It was noted further though, since that time the drawings had been revised. The original preliminary plat for the project was approved several years ago and since that time portions of the development have been sold to two different developers. Also, a new engineer has been hired by the new developers who has revised the original construction plans. Planner. R. J. Ritchey, who has retired, had previously been coordinating the development of this Subdivision. The staff is presently reviewing what approvals have been given to this Subdivision. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to table the Stonecreek Sub- divisions until a discussion at a later date. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Novasad.All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS A Proposed Letter to Mr. Lewis Cox Chief Penicook read a proposed April 7, 1981 letter to Mr. Cox, 5080 Rock Way, Central Point, which indicated he could complete work on a retaining -wall at its present location without a formal permit, fee or inspection of the retaining wall by the City. He noted that this issue had previously been before the Planning Commission and the Council. At that time there was a question whether building permits could be issued. Mr. Penicook reviewed a response dated December 1, 1980 from George J. Roe, Bldg. Codes Division, Dept. of Commerce for the State of Oregon (in a letter sent to him asking if a building permit was necessary) . Mr. Roe's response is that the code prohibits structures from projecting onto public property from private property and the Bldg. Official would have to deny approval; Does allow, with certain definite requirements, , projections over public property; Allows the decision of the City Council to permit structures in public ways as well as allows City to give permission to use space below a public sidewalk; Building Codes does not apply to structures located primarily in a public way and the building official is not impowered by State law to enforce any building code requirement for such structures. Mr. Roe's personal observations over the past years has been to see many regrets over granting rights for occupation of public property. A general discussion followed on whether or not the Planning Commission should embrace the distribution of this letter. The Planning Commissioners felt that the City should not be allowing retaining walls to be built within public right-of-ways. Page 8 Planning Commission Meeting April 7, 1981 Meeting A motion was made by Commissioner Hood to deny the request that the letter be sent. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Freeman. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. It was noted that this item would be on the next Council agenda. A general discussion followed on abstentions from voting and the necessity for issuing a statement of reasons of why a person abstains from the vote. • motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to adjourn the meeting. • second to the motion was made by Commissioner Hood. All Commissioners voted yes. Chairman Hillyer adjourned the meeting at 11:05 P.M. DK:ris