Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 16, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers June 16, 1981 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by Chairman Jean Hillyer. ROLL CALL Commissioners present were George Freeman, Dewayne Hood and Dana Peters. Also present were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmember Donna Higginbotham and Administrator David Kucera and Fire Chief Dave Penicook. Commissioner Pat Himmelman had a previous commitment and was not able to attend. Commissioner Louise Novasad was out of state because of illness in the family. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 2 1981 Planning Commission Meeting A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to approve the minutes as typed. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. . PUBLIC APPEARANCES Chairman Hillyer asked if anyone in the audience wished to make a comment to the Planning Commission. No one came forward. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. NEW BUSINESS 1068 Plan Review - 4-Plex at 748 Maple Street Tax Lot 3400, map 37 2W 2CB Fire Chief Penicook explained that the owner/applicant Mel Sherbourne was not able to attend tonight's meeting until 8: 15. Chairman Hillyer stated they would continue with the agenda, and this matter would be. discussed later in the meeting. 1068 Plan Review Office Expansion 415 South Front Street Tax Lot 4100, map 37 2W 11BC Fire Chief Penicook explained that the applicant, Jim O'Gara, was not yet prepared to make a presentation to the Planning Commission. He hoped to be prepared by the Planning Commission's July 17th meeting. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS . Proposed County Zone Change 24th Avenue White City Fire Chief Penicook explained that this proposed zone change from SR-1 to UR-6 was going to be heard by the County. The owner/applicant was Carewill, Inc. Mr. Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1981 page 2 Penicook.noted that the application was outside the City of Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary but the County Planners felt that a proposal of single family residential of this size of approximately 37 acres would have a signif- icant impact upon the City of Central Point. The proposal amounts to urbanization outside an urban growth boundary because White City is an unincorporated area. A housing development in this area would lessen the need for development in urban areas. The Planning Commission reviewed the Findings of Fact prepared by Carewell, Inc. , the project applicant. Sewer availability was discussed. Commissioner Hood felt that sewer was available to the property. It was noted that this project was proposed to be built with a government subsidy which may compete with homebuilders building in urbanized areas without the benefit of government subsidy. A discussion followed on whether or not this project would adversely impact the City of Central Point. Commissioner Hood felt that no adverse impact would result to the City of Central Point. Eagle Point, however, may feel some impact. It was noted that the same contractors in the Valley build to both subsidized housing and non-subsidized housing. A motion was- made .,�y .Commissioner '.Hood' that :the Planning Commission recommend to the County that they favor the proposal. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. Commissioners Hood and Peters voted yes. Commissioner Free- man voted not. The motion was approved. , Proposed County Zone Change at the North End of Amy Street; Tax Lot 3301 map 37 2W 3DC Fire Chief Penicook explained that this proposed zone change of FR-5 to GI was first before the County as a request by the applicant/owner Mt. Pitt Company to change the zone because of a map error. The County Commissioners had denied the request to change the zone. However they, at the same time, requested that County Staff initiate a proposal to have the zone changed. It was noted that the County Staff and City Council had previously favored urbanization only following annexation. A discussion followed on the zone change with the general concensus being that the City should maintain its position that urbanization adjacent to the City limits should only occur upon annexation. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to recommend to :the County that they deny the request and recommend that the applicant annex to the City of Central Point and rezone the property to City Industrial. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Hood. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Postmaster Request for a Post Office Drop Box Fire Chief Penicook explained that the Central Point Postmaster had requested the placement of a drop box at or near the north boundary of Big Al's Drive In Restaur- ant along North Tenth Street. Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1981 page 3 A discussion followed on the exact location of the proposed box and whether or not the property owner had agreed to this proposal. A question was also raised as to whether or not this would be a drive-up type of installation. The Planning . Commission members felt that these and other questions need to be answered. A motion was made by Commission Freeman to postpone this issue to the next meeting and to request the Postmaster, in the meantime, to present more infor- mation on the request. A second to the motion wasmade by Commissioner Peters. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. A motion was made by Commissioner Hood to adjourn for a 10-minute recess. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Chairman Hillyer adjourned the meeting for a recess at 7:50 P.M. and called the meeting back to order at 8:08 P.M. 1068 Plan Review, 4-flex 748 Maple Street, Tax Lot 3400, map 37 2W 2CB Dave Penicook read the staff report for the 1068 Site Plan Review located at 748 Maple Street, Tax Lot 3400, map page 37 2W 2CB. Mel Sherbourned is the owner/ applicant. The plans were presented to the Planning Commission by Mr. Penicook and reviewed. Mel Sherbourne, 1369 Kings Highway, Medford, and Jerry Gavin, architect of Glen Thompson & Associates, discussed the proposal with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Freeman asked how much space was available between the parking area and the building. Mr. Gavin stated that a 1-foot landscape space was available outside. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed overhangs, fences and the apartment access from the parking areas. Chairman Hillyer stated that the Planning Commission normally requires a 3-foot overhang on the buildings. There were some concerns that access to the individual apartments from the parking. area was inconvenient due to the distance. A discussion followed on the proposed "piggy-back"parking. Mr. Gavin explained why wide driveway was used instead: of an 18-foot driveway. This proposal allowed "piggy-back" parking to occur and still maintain the required 20-foot front yard setback. it was noted that Municipal Code 17.64.070 requires that each parking space must have ingress and egress. Therefore, the Planning Commission felt that "piggy- back" parking did not meet the Municipal Code. - Chairman Hillyer stated that in a past-Planning Commission tour, the Planning Com- mission specifically reviewed "piggy-back" parking and found that in most cases no one uses "piggy-back" parking; instead, the second car is parked in the street. A motion was made by Commission Freeman to deny the proposed 1068 Plan Review due to the fact that there is no ingress and egress for each individual parking space. Planning Commission Minutes June 16, 1981 page 4 A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Hood. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Adoption of the Proposed Zoning Regulations Commissioner Freeman felt that the proposed revision of the Municipal Code 10.04.112, Mobile Home, Motor Home or Truck Parking Prohibitions, should also include a phrase probiting that parking if it created a hazard or a safety problem. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to recommend to the Council that Section 10.04.112 either put an 8,000GPW requirement in this proposed Code Section or remove the work "truck", and in addition, to add a clause referring to safety and creating hazards. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. Administrator Kucera pointed out that Code Section 10.04.112 refers to the definition of truck as defined in ORS Chapter 481. Chapter 481 was reviewed. In addition, the proposed zoning regulations in Section 17.60.050, D, Storage and Occupancy of mobile homes, motor homes and similar recreational vehicles, already includes the statement that a vehicle shall not constitute a hazard, obstruct visibility, block driveway access to the street or interfere with pedestrian usage of a public sidewalk. Commissioner Peters stated that he would withdraw his second to the motion in view , of the information presented. Chairman Hillyer asked if there was another second to the motion. There was no other second and Chairman Hillyer stated that the motion dies for lack of a second. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commission Hood to adjourn. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Chairman Hillyer adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P.M.