Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 6, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers -- October 6, 1981 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Due to Chairman R. B. Taylor's absence, the meeting was called to order by Chairman Pro-Tem George Freeman at 7:10 P.M. ROLL CALL Present were Commissioners Owen Christy, George Freeman, Pat Himmelman, Louise Novasad, and the newest member of the Planning Commission, Orrin Frederick. Al.so present were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmember Donna Higginbotham, Citizens Advisory Committee Chairman Grace Russell, Planner Ron Hough, Fire Chief David Penicook, and Building Department Secretary Luci Miller. Absent were Chairman R. B. Taylor and Commissioner Dana Peters. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 1 , 1981 and September 15, 1981 Planning Commission Meetings Chairman George Freeman noted that there were no minutes to be approved for the meetings of September 1 and September 15. Chairman R. B. Taylor did not open these meetings since there was no business on the agendas and no one from the public present. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence brought before the Planning Commission. PUBLIC APPEARANCES S TG i'✓ G ! is Gary Whittle, 820 S. Front Street, Central Point, Whit-Law Properties, Inc. , came before the Planning Commission with a request for preliminary plat approval for Stonecreek Unit 3. Chief Penicook came forward and explained that Gary Whittle is asking for preliminary approval of Stonecreek 3; and that the Planning Commission has looked at it previously. The lots are standard size lots, and Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Block 10 have previously had variances approved. Chief Penicook also stated that Staff had received no material from Mr. Whittle until this evening, and Staff did not have time to prepare a Staff Report. Commissioner Novasad felt that this preliminary plat had already been approved. Chief Penicook explained that the variances had been approved, but not the preliminary plat itself. Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 1981 Page Two Commissioner Himmelman asked why the variances were needed; for frontage? Chief Penicook explained that the front lot minimum footage was 70 feet, but it has since been changed to 60 feet. The variances have been approved for 70 feet minimum, so the lots meet the requirement either way. He also stated that the Planning Commission has already approved lot size, but not _ the actual approval of the preliminary plat. Chairman Freeman asked about any conflict of interest from any of the Planning Commission members. There was no conflict. Chief Penicook advised that Staff would like to see the approval be con- tingent upon an agreement between Whit-Law Properties' secretary signing a Right-of-Way Agreement and also the signing of a Subdivision Agreement with the City of Central Point. Commissioner Himmelman then made a motion to approve the preliminary plat of Stonecreek 3 with the contingency that the secretary of Whit-Law Properties enter into both a Right-of-Way Agreement and a Subdivision Agreement with the City. Commissioner Novasad seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. , BUSINESS A. Fence Variance - Stonecreek 2 - Farnsworth Drive near Chickory Lane, Mike Mahar, Applicant It was decided by Chairman Freeman that the Planning Commission would delay consideration of the fence variance until Mr. Mahar could be present. B. Modifications to Zoning Ordinance 1. Nonconforming Uses Chairman Freeman then went on to Item B.1 . - Nonconforming Uses. Chief Penicook explained that the modification to the Zoning . Ordinance was a change in Chapter 17.56, Section 17.56.060, p. 57, #2. He then read the Staff Report in support of this proposed change. The proposed change is intended to prohibit the expansion of an occupancy if the use is a Class B non- conforming use. Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 1981 Page Three Chairman Freeman asked if any of the Commissioners had anything they wanted to add to this. Commissioner Himmelman asked what was desired - a vote, a decision? Chief Penicook stated that a resolution of intent was needed. Planner Ron Hough felt that this change clarifies what the ordinance was really meant to say in the first place. The wording originally was not sufficient to meet the original intent of this ordinance. Commissioner Himmelman then made a motion to pass a resolution 3 of intent to approve the modification to the Zoning Ordinance, Nonconforming Uses, specifically Section 17.56.060, p. 57, Item B.2. as proposed, to read as follows: "In no case shall a non- conforming use be enlarged or otherwise expanded, and no structure, the use of which is nonconforming, shall be moved, altered or en- larged unless required by law or unless such moving, alteration or enlargement will result in the elimination of the nonconforming use." . Commissioner Novasad seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Chairman Freeman called a five minute recess at 7: 35 P.M. Chairman Freeman called the meeting back to order at 7:40 P.M. 2. Addition of Definition of Temporary Use to the Zoning Ordinance Chief Penicook explained that this is a new definition that ties in directly with Item 3, Addition of Conditional Uses Allowed in Certain Commercial Zones. He then read the proposed definition, and the Staff Report in support of this item. He explained that the Planning, Department has had five requests in the last three weeks or so for temporary uses. Therefore, Chief Penicook, Admini- strator Kucera and Ron Hough of RUCOG felt that a definition should be added to the Zoning Ordinance, specifically as Section 17.08.383. The definition should read as follows: "Temporary Use - A use of a limited duration, not exceeding five (5) months. Examples might be, but are not limited to , sidewalk cafes, farmers markets, mobile food vendors, craft markets, etc." Chairman Freeman felt that it should be explained that temporary uses would not be allowed in "R" zones, just "C" zones. Commissioner Himmelman then asked what the length of time was that is now stated in the Zoning Ordinance as a temporary use. Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 1981 Page Four Chief Penicook advised that there is no time limit now stated in the Zoning Ordinance. Commissioner Himmelman indicated that she felt that Christmas tree lots, fireworks stands, etc. , should not have to go through the Planning Commission procedures. Then Chief Penicook stated that maybe another definition could state days for such uses, and they could be called short term uses, rather than temporary uses. Commissioner Himmelman then proposed that there be a permit for short term uses with a reasonable time period granted. Chief Penicook then proposed a definition of Short Term Uses to also be added to the Zoning Ordinance as follows: "A use of limited duration in a commercial zone, not exceeding _ calendar days. The City Administrator shall cause these Short Term Use permits to be issued." Chief Penicook explained that the City Administrator would have the authority to choose what City employees would approve the Short Term Use permits. All of the Commissioners were in favor of adding the definition of Temporary Use, as long as the definition of Short Term Use was also added as Section 17.08.368 to the Zoning Ordinance. Then the number of days of duration of the Short Term Use permits was discussed, and it was decided that 45 calendar days would be sufficient. Commissioner Christy then asked if there was any provision in the ordinance for permits running consecutively (i.e. , from November 15 to December 31 of one year, and then immediately reapplying January 1 through February 15 of the next year). Chief Penicook felt that if someone reapplied, it would then be brought before the Planning Commission and it would be decided what impact the use would have on existing businesses and a decision would be made as to whether or not to grant the additional 45 day period. ga Commissioner Christy made a motion to pass a resolution of intent"to add the definition of Temporary Use to Section 17.08.383 to read as follows: "Temporary Use - A use of a limited duration, not exceeding five (5) months. Examples might be, but are not limited to, sidewalk cafes, farmers markets, mobile food vendors, craft markets, etc."; and and to also add the definition of Short Term Use to Section 17.08.368 to read as follows: "A use of limited duration in a commercial zone, not exceeding 45 calendar days. The City Administrator shall cause these Short Term Use permits to be issued." Commissioner Himmelman seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 1981 Page Five 3. Addition of Conditional Uses Allowed in Certain Commercial Zones Chief Penicook read the Staff Report and the Issue Paper written by Planner Ron Hough of RVCOG regarding this item. He advised that if the uses are not compatible in all commercial zones, it is up to the Planning Commission to decide which commercial zones they are compatible in. All of the Planning Commission members felt that both Temporary Uses and Short Term Uses should be allowed in all commercial zones, as long as they are compatible and do not interfere with existing businesses. Commissioner Frederick felt that the phrase Short Term Use should be added to the beginning of the phrase which is proposed, so that it reads as follows: "Short term uses and temporary uses which the Planning Commission finds to be similar to the uses listed above, and which are compatible with other permitted uses within the intent of the zoning district." Chairman Freeman asked if the Staff recommends a fee for the temporary use permit or the short term use permits. Chief Penicook advised that it was $100.00 for conditional use permits and it should be the same for temporary use permits which are good for a period of up to five (5) months, but that the short term use permits have not had a fee set as yet. Chairman Freeman asked if there was any further discussion. Chief Penicook stated that we needed a resolution of intent to add Temporary and Short Term Uses as Conditional Uses in the commercial zones that the Planning Commission felt appropriate. The appropriate sections are C-1, Section 17.32.030, Item D; C-2, Section 17.36.030, Item GG; C-3, Section 17.40.030, Item M; C-4, Section 17.44.030, Item T; and C-5, Section 17.46.030, Item Z. It was decided that short term and temporary uses would be added in the appropriate sections as listed above. 33 Commissioner Frederick made a motion to pass the resolution of intent to approve the addition of Temporary Uses and Short Term Uses in all Commercial Zones in the appropriate chapters as defined above, and Commissioner Novasad seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 1981 Page Six Chairman Freeman then asked if the Planning Commission was going to act on the fence variance for Stonecreek 2, even though Mike Mahar was not present. Chief Penicook felt that he could provide the information needed, but that it was up to Chairman Freeman if it should be acted upon at this time. It was decided that the Planning Commission would go ahead with this matter. Chairman Freeman asked if the two new Planning Commission members understood why the fence variance was applied for, and explained that it was so that the property owners could use their back yards with some degree of privacy. It was not the intention to bar access, and the property owners are not required to keep the fence up. Chief Penicook read the application and the material prepared by the proponent. The developer feels the fence would enhance the selling of the' lots because it would make the appearance more aesthetically . pleasing. He also stated that Mike Mahar stipulated that it was just the back lot line that would be fenced. Commissioner Frederick asked about the consideration of timing of construction of the fence. Chief Penicook indicated that the Planning ' Commission could put any reasonable constraint on the timing of construction of the fence. He also advised that he felt the fence would be built rapidly, as it was Mr. Mahar's intention to post a personal bond for this work. Discussion then centered'on whether the Planning Commission should require that the fence be constructed before any conveyance of lots. Commissioner Frederick made a motion to approve the proposed fence variance with the stipulation that the fence be constructed in its entirety before the conveyance of Lots 3 through 17 on the easterly boundary of Stonecreek 2; and Commissioner Himmelman seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes._ All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS Chief Penicook read a letter from Dana Peters in which he explained his resignation from the Planning Commission due to job and related training commitments. All of the Planning Commission members and Mayor Jones understood his reason for resigning and expressed their feelings of regret in losing such a good Planning Commission member. Planning Commission Meeting October 6, 1981 Page Seven ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Rimmelman made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Novasad. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes; $immelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion to adjourn, and the motion carried. Chairman Freeman adjourned the meeting at 9:10 P.M.