Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 21, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting April 21, 1981 City Hall Council Chambers ! Chairman Jean Hillyer called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. ROLL CALL Commissionmembers present were Chairman Hillyer, Members George Freeman, Theda Havice, Pat Himmelman, Louise Novasad and Dana Peters. Present from the Council were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmembers Paul Golding, Donna Higginbotham and Ron Holmgren. Citizens Advisory Committeemembers present were Chairman Grace Russelland Ginger Hitterling. City Staff present were Administrator David Kucera, Dave Penicook and RVCOG Representative Ron Hough. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to postpone a review of the minutes until the next meeting; after the Commissioners have had a chance for review. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Havice. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. OLD BUSINESS Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit at 523 South First Street Chairman Hillyer opened the public hearing. Dave Penicook read a description of the application which was a Conditional Use Permit for a home occupation to repair small appliances, build dog houses, repair lawnmowers and occasional yard sales; dpplicant W. L. Mefford, 523 South First St. Dave Penicook explained that the public hearing had been incorrectly advertised and a public hearing held by the Planning Commission at their April 7th meeting. A corrected re-advertisement had been published in the Medford Mail Tribune on April 10th and April 17th advertising this public hearing before the Planning Commission on April 21st, 1981. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 2 Dave Penicook entered into the record Exhibit #1 which was an application signed for this request; by W. L. Mefford; Exhibit #2 was a statement by Mr. Mefford as to the feasop/. Exhi #3 was a tax map showing the location of Mr. Mefford's property; Exhibit #4 was a petition signed by propertyowners in the area stating they see no reason why he should not be granted a business license; Exhibit X65 was a Staff Report to Chairman Hillyer and Planning Commissionmembers from Dave Penicook dated 4/07/81. Chairman Hillyer asked the Commissionmembers to declare any ex parte contact or conflict of interest. There were none. Chairman Hillyer asked for a presentation by the applicant. Mr. Mefford gave a brief description of the proposed Home Occupation uses and in- dicated that he wished to receive this permit in order to supplement his Social Security income. Chairman Hillyer asked for any further proponents. There were none. She asked 1 for any opponents. There were none. She asked for questions from parties involved. There were none. Chairman Hillyer closed the public hearing. Commissioner Havice noted that the Commissioners also had before them a memorandum to Central Point Planning Commission from Ron W. Hough-- RVCOG Planner, dated April 15, 1981 which discussed the proposed home occupation. There was a brief discussion regarding the use of the garage and provision of offstreet parking. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to accept the Findings of Fact presented by the City Staff and Ron Hough, approve the request for a home occupation with th restriction that the approval be only for 1 year, at which time the applicant woul have to re-apply for a renewal, and to restrict the number of yard sales per year to that number allowed by ordinance. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Havice. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 3 NEW BUSINESS Public Meeting to Consider an Annexation and Zone Change along Bursell Road Chairman Hillyer opened the public meeting. Dave Penicook read a description of the application for annexation and zone change from County zoning of S-R-1 to City Zoning of R-1-8. The approximate 4.17 acres owned by Don Meyer and Sons is located in the vicinity of Bursell Road, Pittview and Edella. Dave Penicook read the notice of the advertisement in the Medford Mail Tribune of this public meeting which was published April 10th and April 17th, 1981. The notice was entered as Exhibit #1. Chairman Hillyer asked if there were any conflicts of interest or ex parte contact on the part of the Planning Commission. There were none. Dave Penicook entered a vicinity map showing the location of the property as Exhibit #2. As Exhibit #3 a copy of the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting Minutes of April 1, 1981 were entered into the record which included the proponents verbal presentation on L.C.D.C. Goals and Guidelines and the CAC motion to approve the proposed annexation.. Exhibit #4 was a staff report to Chairman Jean Hillyer and Planning Commissionmembers from Dave Penicook dated April 20, 1981. Chairman Hillyer asked for a presentation by the proponents. Verlyn Thomas, Surveyor, 304 South Holly Street, Medford stated he was representing the applicant Ted Friesen. He stated the City's Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Medium Density. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary, adjacent to and contiguous with the City limits and R-1-8 zoned property. All City urban facilities such as water, power and telephone are available. Verlyn Thomas also reviewed L.C.D.C. 's 14 Goals and Guidelines. Goal #1 - Citizen Involvement - He stated that the Citizen Involvement requirements had been met because of the meeting here tonight. The fact that the Citizens Advisory Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 4 Committee had previously met to discuss this annexation is also proof the Citizens Involvement goal had been met. Goal #2 - Land Use Planning - He stated that Goal 2 had been met because the property is within the City's and County's Urban Growth Boundaries. Goal #3 - Agricultural Land - He stated that this property is addressed in a formal urban growth boundary. L.C.D.C. states that if an area is within an urban growth boundary it removes any conflicts with the agricultural goal. If the area were not within an urban growth boundary then it must be shown that adequate public facilities are available. They�are available because sewer and water and other utilities are adjacent to the property. It also must be proven that the area is physically developed which it is because it is surrounded by developed land. Valley Estates Subdivision is to the north of this property and west of it and Homestead Acres #2 is to the south. It also must be proved that the lands ar needed for urbanization. This is also true because the property is surrounded by urban density growth, therefore it is needed for urban development. Being in the urban growth boundary is also proof enough. Goal #4 - Forest Lands - He stated that Goal #4 is not applicable. Goal #5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural Resources - He stated that this Goal is not applicable. Goal #6 -Air,Sdater& Land Resources Quality - He stated that it is encumbered upon the City to annex this property rather than require the development to use septic tanks which would create a potential health hazard. It is not good planning to w septic tanks within an urban density area. Goal #7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and Hazards - He stated that this property is not within a flood plain and therefore, this goal is not applicable. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 5 Goal #8 - Recreational Needs - He stated that the City's requirement of a development after annexation that a park be developed or a fee be paid in lieu of a park. This meets the needs of recreation. Goal #9 - Economy of the State - He stated that 16 lots would have no affect upon the economy of the State one way or another. Goal #10 - Housing - He stated that this Goal requires the Cities insure and protect the future housing requirements. A community must maintain an inventory of avail- able lots or prices will escalate. Cities must furnish lands as economical as possible. Annexation maintains an inventory and promotes a lower cost. No R-1-8 lots are available in the southeast part of the City. The developer will be constructing his own houses, therefore, they will be less expensive. Goal X611 - Public Facilities and Services - Public facilities are adjacent to the property. There is adequate sewage treatment plant capacity and water capacity. City police and fire services will be available. Goal #12 - Transportation - City and County should be joining in a transporation with study. Mr. Thomas stated that he has checked/the County and the average ADT (average daily traffic) was measured on February 14, 1980 and an average of three locations shows 1330 vehicles on Bursell and Hopkins Roads. These roads are the old State Highway 99 with a 6 to 8 inch concrete base and it will hold a fantastic amount of traffic. Mr. Thomas stated that he has talked with Jackson County Dept. Traffic Engineer Dave Hutson who has said that 1450 ADT is permissible for Bursell Road and this subdivision would have no adverse impact. Goal #13 - Energy Conservation - Services are in close proximity to the property, thereby creating conservation. The street proposed is on an east-west direction; therefore it will create the maximum solar influence. Goal #14 - Urbanization - He stated that the fact that the property is within the Urban Growth Boundary already addresses its availability as urbanizable property. . Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 6 It is incorporated within the Urban Growth Boundary which is planned for the next 20 years. Mr. Thomas summarized by stating he feels the proposal meets all of the 14 Goals and Guidelines required by L.C.D.C. and that the annexation would have no adverse impact to the City of Central Point. Chairman Hillyer asked if there were any further proponents. There were none. She asked for any opponents. There were none. She asked if there were any questions of the participants. There were no questions relating to the annexation nor zone change. Chairman Hillyer closed the public hearing. A motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman that based on the Findings of Fact presented by the applicant, the City's Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Bounds$ that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the annexation. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Havice. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. A motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman to recommend approval of the zone change from County S-R-1 to City R-1-8. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Havice. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the annexation and a resolution recommending approval of the zone change and authorize the Chairman' s signature on the resolutions. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Public Meeting to receive Testimony on Proposed Major Changes to the Text of the Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 7 Zoning Ordinances and Zoning Map Chairman Hillyer opened the public meeting for comments. RVCOG Planner Ron Hough presented as Exhibit #1 the City of Central Point Zoning Ordinance (draft revision) dated March 24, 1981 prepared by Ron W. Hough, Rogue Valley Council of Governments. As Exhibit #2 he presented a proposed City of and Planning Commissioners Central Point Zoning Map. As Exhibit X63 he passed out to all Councilmembers/present a Summary of the Zoning Ordinance Revisions dated March 24, 1981. As Exhibit #4 he presented an Addendum to Section 17.60.180 Home Occupations which was recommended by the Central Point Citizens Advisory Committee at its meeting April 20, 1980. As Exhibit #5 he presented the City of Central Point Zoning Map, Proposed Zone Changes which highlighted the areas of change between the existing map and the proposed map. As Exhibit #6 a copy of the Minutes of the April 20, 1981 Citizens Advisory Committee Meeting were entered into the record. Commissioner Havice stated that in Section 17.60.50 there did not appear to be anything covering other types of trailers which were being used for garages. A discussion followed. Commissioner Himmelman stated that in Section 17.44 Clothing or sporting goods stores would be non-conforming uses. Ron Hough stated that the 2-block area on Pine Street which is the west end of the Tourist-Commercial has a lot of small lots, drive-ins, small houses. This is a transition area and a clothing store would probably be okay in this area, but it would not be appropriate on the east side of the Freeway. The C-4 Zone is designed for a large area east of the Freeway. Item D-15 would provide leeway for other similar and compatible uses as determined by the Planning Commission. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 8 A discussion followed. It was a concensus of the Planning Commission to strike the word "only" in Section 17.44.030 in the third line after paragraph S. Candy Rayburn questioned why no alcoholic beverages were permitted to be sold in . the restaurants in the C-2 zone. Ron Hough stated that the C-2 zoneis the buffer zone between the downtown and residential area. Children and pedestrian traffic was expected in the area. It was a concensus of the Planning Commission to add the dispensing of alcohol in restaurants in this zone as a Conditional Use Permit in Section 17.36.030. Candy Rayburn also questioned the prohibition of storage and recreation vehicles as outlined in Section 17.60.050. 1 She stated that everyone in town uses the setback for parking of these vehicles. Chairman Hillyer pointed out that existing ordinances already prohibit this activity. Candy Rayburn felt that this item should be removed from the proposed ordinance except in areas where a hazard would be created. Ron Hough stated that allowing recreational vehicles to park in the front yard was similar to allowing a house to be built in the front yard. Mayor Jones stated the ordinance as it is proposed would protect pedestrians on sidewalks. Ron Hough stated that the ordinances require two offstreet parking places for residential uses and allowing storage of vehicles in the yard would not be keeping the access way clear to the offstreet parking. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 9 It was a concensus of Commissioners Novasad, Freeman and Hillyer to leave Section 17.60.050 as it is proposed. Commissioners Himmelman and Havice did not comment. Mike LaNier spoke in favor of the proposed C-5 zone and he encouraged the adoption of the zone as proposed. Don Pfaff questioned the uses that were allowed in the thoroughfare commercial zone. Ron Hough stated that they were uses primarily related to auto traffic. Commissioner Freeman mentioned that Section 17.60.180, Home Occupations, had been discussed at the Citizens Advisory Committee. It was a concensus of the Planning Commission to adopt this section with the Citizens Advisory Committee recommendations. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Text of the Zoning Ordinances with the changes that have been agreed to and authorizing the Chairman's signature to that resolution. A second to the motion was made by Chairman Hillyer. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Ron Hough reviewed the proposed Zoning Map and discussed the various zones. Councilmember Golding recommended that the area proposed as R-2 which is west of Glenn Way and north of Pine Street be designated as R-1-8 because it primarily is a residential area and the R-2 designation would afflict the existing church. Councilmember Donna Higginbotham agreed with Councilmember Golding's suggestion because she felt this R-2 zone should not be against the existing R-1-8. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 10 A discussion followed. Commissioners Havice and Freeman recommending changing the proposed R-2 zone back J to R-1. Commissioner Himmelman, Peters and Hillyer did not want the proposed R-2 changed. Virginia Brown questioned the proposed R-3 zone on Chicory Lane. Ron Hough pointed out that this area is zoned R-3 and the Comprehensive Plan shows it as Medium Density. The Comp. Plan, in this case, would govern the density at 12 units per acre. However, a developer could build an R-3-type development. She also asked what the designation was for a lot located between Chestnut and Ash along Freeman. It was pointed out that this area is currently R-1-8 and under the present zoning regulations a lot cannot be divided unless it is 16,000 square feet or more. Under the proposed ordinances a minimum lot would be 6,000 square feet and divisiol could occur for a lot with a minimum of 12,000 square feet. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to continue this public meeting and the adoption of the resolution to change the zoning map until the May 5, 1981 Planning Commission meeting. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Novasad. Commissioners Novasad and Freeman voted yes; Commissioners Havice, Himmelman, Hillyer and Peters voted no. The motion failed. A discussion followed on whether or not to change the proposed zoning map. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to adopt a resolution recommending that the proposed Zoning Map be adopted with the exception of the area west of Clenn Way and north of Pine Street which should be changed from R-2 to R-1. A second to the mo was made by Commissioner Himmelman. Commissioners Freeman, Himmelman, Havice and Peters voted yes. Commissioners Novasad and Hillyer voted no. The motion was approved. At 9:20 P.M. Chairman Hillyer called a recess and called the meeting back to order at 9:25 P.M. Planning Commission Minutes April 21, 1981 - page 11 Preliminary Plat Review Stonecreek III Subdivision Administrator Kucera indicated there was no report on this matter for tonight's meeting. Selection of Planning Commission Vice-Chairman Commissioner Havice nominated Commissioner Freeman. A second to the nomination was provided by Commissioner Novasad. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to close the nominations for Commissioner Freeman as Vice-Chairman and cast a unanimous ballot. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Novasad. All Commissioners voted yes with the exception of Commissoner Freeman who abstained, and the motion was approved. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS the minutes Commissioner Freeman indicated that recently/of the Planning Commission meetings have not been mailed out with the agendas. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to adjourn the meeting. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. Commissioners Havice and Himmelman withdrew their motion and second. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman that they are insured that the minutes of March 24, 1981 are corrected before they are brought out. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Havice. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. A motion was made by Commissioner Havice to adjourn. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. Commissioners Novasad, Himmelman, Havice and Peters voted yes. Commissioners Hillyer and Freeman voted no. The majority was in favor and the motion carried.. , Chairman Hillyer adjourned the meeting at 9:37 P.M.