Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJuly 7, 1981 1 Central Point Planning Commission Meeting of July 7, 1981 Council Chambers MEETING CALLED TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 P.M. by Chairman Jean Hillyer. ROLL CALL Chairman Jean Hillyer was present. Commissioners present were George Freeman, Pat Himmelman, Dewayne Hood, and Dana Peters. . Also present were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmember Donna Higginbotham, and Administrator David Kucera and Fire Chief Dave Penicook. Commissioner Louise Novasad was presumed to be out of town. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 16 1981 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Freeman questioned if the minutes should state under the heading of "Roll Call" that Chairman Jean Hillyer was present. He also stated that on page 1 of the minutes just before Miscellan- eous Matters July 17, 1981 should be changed to July 7, 1981. On page 2 under the heading Proposed County Zone Change, 24th Avenue White City he stated that another statement needs to be added to the minutes that states there would be a conflict with the housing market in Central Point that has not been sold. On page 3, paragraph 2 in the 3rd sentence the wording "wasmade" should be "was made" . On page 4 paragraph 3 the wording "8, 000 GPW" should be "8, 000 GVW" . A motion was made by Commissioner Hood to approve the minutes as amended. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Freeman. 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. BUSINESS Public Hearing Conditional Use Permit Home Occupation at 155 South Fourth Street Chief Penicook stated that due to an error by the Medford ,Sail Tribune that the advertising for this hearing was not proper. There- fore it would have to be rescheduled. Plann. Commission Meeting July 7, 1981 - page 2 1068 Plan Review, 4-flex 748 Maple Street The application was for Tax Lot 3400, 37 2W 2CB. Mel Sherbourne is the owner/applicant Cheif Penicook reviewed the plans proposed by Mr. Sherbourne. The Planning Commission discussed the parking arrangment. Chief Peni- cook noted that there were no major changes in the construction drawings which had been previously submitted. The Planning Commission felt that the trees proposed in the planter area adjacent to the street would block the view of traffic. They also felt that the sidewalk should be realigned to be alongside the curb. Commissioner Freeman questioned how pedestrian access would be accomplished with the parking lot showing 5 spaces on one side of the building and 3 on the other. Gary Caperna with Glen Thompson & Associates, Architects, represent- ing Mel Sherbourne explained that some of the apartments were one bedroom and require fewer parking spaces . He also noted that the overhang had been changed to show 3-feet as required by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed fences and there w a question .of .,whether, or not the back property line .fence should. 5 or 6 feet high. A motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman to approve the 1068 Review with the conditions that the fences along the alley and rear meet City code and that the sidewalk be moved adjacent to the curb and that the trees in the setback area meet the City code and that the eave overhang be increased to 4-feet. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Freeman. All Commis- sioners voted yes and the motion was approved. 1068 Plan Review Stonecreek II Fencing Chief Penicook explained that Mike Mahar, owner/applicant of the Stonecreek II Subdivision was requesting that he be allowed to build a 6-foot fence along the property line rather than put in a dirt . berm and hedgerow 13-feet from the property line as originally re- quired in the Subdivision approval. Chief Penicook explained that there was a problem in interpreting the existing fence code to allow this request. Furthermore, the existing fence code would probably only allow a fence of 311 feet in height in the majority of the Stonecreek II Subdivision where the lots were adjoining Chicory Lane. Mike Mahar explained that he felt that the aesthetic value of a fence would be better than the proposed shrub-row. In addition, would prevent people from driving onto their lots from Chicory La This move would set the stage for future fence building in the area. Plann. Commission Meeting July 7, 1981 - page 3 Administrator Kucera indicated that the Planning Commission had basically two choices if they were inclined to agree with Mr. Mahar' s proposal. First, would be to amend the fence code to allow variances for certain situations. Second would be to amend the fence code to allow variances for "through lot" situations. He noted that much of the older part of the city with alleys was designed with the lots as being "through lots" . Mr. Mahar suggested that if the City wanted to prevent ingress and egress from Chicory Lane to the back yard of the lots then he could deed a 1-foot strip of land to the City. Mr. Penicook felt that the upkeep of shrubbery may not be main- tained by the homeowners as well as they could maintain a fence. Therefore, fences would be more aesthetic. A discussion followed on which course of action the Commission should recommend. Mayor Jones felt that none of these lots were more than 130-feet deep. The Planning Commission needs to address which is the front and back yard by definition. He was in favor of the fence being built on the property line. Commissioner Freeman recommended that the 6 foot fence be allowed as proposed by Mr. Mahar. Also, that the Planning Commission be able to decide front yards in through lots that do not exceed 150 feet. in addition-, there should be no ingress -nor egress from the back side of the lot. Mayor Jones felt the City needed to blend their ordinances in order to allow homes the privacy of a fenced backyard. Be recommended the ordinance be changed. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to request Staff to prepare an amendment of the fence ordinance as previously discussed for their review. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. All Commissioners voted yes with the exception of Commissioner Hood who voted no. Suncreek Subdivision Preliminary Plat Review The proposed subdivision is along Bursell Road and north of Edella Avenue, Tax Lot 6400, 37 2W 11C. Chief Penicook explained and reviewed the proposed Preliminary Plat with the Planning Commission. He noted that the Planning Commis- sion needed to consider whether the sewer lines would come from B.C.V.S.A. or City lines . Also, the Planning Commission should consider requesting that the westerly side of Bursell Road would 0 be improved. In addition, that a condition of approval be that the fees for withdrawal from Fire District 3 and B.C.V.S.A. be paid. Specifically, the bond debt fees . Plann. Commission Meeting July 7, 1981 - page 4 Verlyn Thomas, Surveyor, representing the applicants explained that the proposed subdivision contained 16 lots with a minimum lot size of 8014 square feet and a maximum lot of 12, 752 square feet. The average lot was 9183 square feet. He noted this was an efficient use of the land. The solar access was good and the through street in the proposed subdivision would relieve some of the traffic problem on Edella Avenue as it now exists. He also felt that the ' logical, location for the sewer was to connect to B.C.V.S.A. ' s line in Bursell Road. He felt. there. was no problem in building curb and gutter to City and county speci- fications along Bursell Road. The developer also wished to pay fees,. in lieu of dedicating land. In response to a question by Commissioner Freeman, Chief Penicook explained that the minimum lot width for this zone was 70 feet and that the minimum front footage for a lot on a curve of less than 150-foot radius could be 25 feet. The minimum curve rate as shown on the Preliminary Plat was 36 feet. Chuck Strom, 3396 Edella Avenue, asked that the sewer system in- stalled by the subdivider be extended to the south property line of the subdivision. He noted that the people on Edella Avenue had recently petitioned for sewers but that enough people remon- strated that they were not built. Even though this street is still in the County, he feels that the City should provide for eventual future sewer service. The easiest location for sewers to be pro- vided in this area would be either through the proposed-street- 1n the the subdivision or a private easement along the south side of the subdivision. Verlyn Thomas explained that such a request for an extension of an extra 70 feet of sewer to a property line was not unusual. Mayor Jones recommended that the Planning Commission request the sewer line be extended but that the developer get a reimbursement for that extension. It was noted that Suncreek Subdivision had 16 lots and that the potential number of`. lots that could be served .on Edella A-ve. 'Gas . .36 and a sewer line would be acceptable for either or both. Mrs. James Harrison who also lives on Edella stated that she agreed with Mr. Strom' s request. Mayor Jones stated that if the people on Edella want city services then they should annex before they request the developer to bear the extra burden of extending sewer lines . Verlyn Thomas stated that he and Mr. Strom and the -developer coul work out any problems associated with providing this service, and that the matter could be addressed at a later date. Plann. Commission Meeting July 7, 1981 - page 5 A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to approve the Preliminary Plat Review with the condition that the sewer be addressed prior to the final plat. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. After some discussion the motion and the second were withdrawn. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to approve the Preliminary Plat Review with the condition that the County road be improved with a standard curb and gutter and sidewalk to both City and County specifications, and subject to the B.C.V.S.A. and Fire District #3 bond debt for withdrawal from their districts be paid, and accept the fee in lieu of . land dedication, and further condition that the sewer construction be subject to meeting City standards and approval. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Chairman Hillyer called a break at 9 : 10 P.M. and called the meeting back to order at 9: 20 P.M. 1068 Plan Review Commercial modifications 415 South Front Street The property is located on Tax Lot 4100, 37 2W 11BC and Jim O'Gara a is the applicant. Chief Penicook presented the proposed plans and noted that the driveway access from Front Street would be used, not the one pro- posed originally from the adjoining property. The building would be a "Butler-type" building. Commissioner Freeman noted that there was no sidewalk along Front Street in the proposal and there should be one. A discussion followed on whether or not sidewalks should be provided. It was noted that many of the businesses along Front Street did not have sidewalks. Mr. O'Gara, in response to a question, stated that there was no fencing planned on his south boundary line. There is an existing curb along that line. The building would be set on the property line where the existing building is now. There was a question on whether or not the City should be using the existing zoning map or the ne-:: one which will go into effect approxi- mately July 11th. Chairman Hillyer stated that until the new zoning map goes into 0 effect. the Planning Commission must abide by the exisitng one. A motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman to approve the 1068 Plan Review with the condition that a sidewalk be built along Front street in lieu of the proposed planting area and the street numbers be provided on the building according to City code. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Peters. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Planning Commission Meeting July 7, 1981 - page 6 MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS Review of PP&L Lighting System for Stonecreek II Subdivision Chief Penicook explained the proposed contract for metal pole, overhead circuit street lighting service. There was a discussion on the definition of the terms in the contract. A motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman to approve the proposed Stonecreek II Street Lighting Plan as long as it meets City codes. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Freeman. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Discussion of Proposed Ordinance on Parking Recreational vehicles in Streets and on Private Property Chief Penicook reviewed the issue paper on parking on streets and private property dated July 1, 1981. He also reviewed the newest proposed ordinance adopting an amendment to Municipal Code 10.04 .112. The Planning Commission discussed the enforcement problem of such an ordinance. Specifically, those relating to truck parking. They also discussed the proposed parking in the setback area and on th street. It was noted that the ordinance, as proposed, was actual being._ modified from an existing ordinance to allow more parking in the front yards. It was a concensus of the Planning Commissio that the ordinance was okay. Planning Commission Compensation Commissioner Hood questioned if the Planning Commission should be paid expense monies for gas and time spent making on-site reviews of the proposed agenda items. Mayor Jones noted that items such as this should have been brought up prior to the City' s budget session this year. In addition, the Planning Commission, other than the Chairman, is specifically not to receive compensation by ordinance. Chairman Hillyer agreed that this issue should be addressed at budget time and at this late date it was not an appropriate issue. Mailing of Agendas . It was the concensus of the Planning Commission after a discussion that Chief Penicook could provide copies of the agenda to the Planning Commission as early as possible. The Planning Commissio packet could then be mailed at a later date as soon as it was compiled by City staff. Adjournment A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to adjourn. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. All Commissioners voted yes and the motion was approved. Chairman Hilly pr adiourned the meetinrr at ln• nn P