Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOctober 20, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers October 20, 1981 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairman R. B. Taylor called the meeting to order at 7:08 P.M. ROLL CALL Present were Chairman R. B. Taylor and Commissioners Louise Novasad, Pat Himmelman, Orrin Frederick and Owen Christy. Also present were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmember Donna Higginbotham, Citizens Advisory Committee Chairman Grace Russell, Citizens Advisory Committee member Ginger Bitterling, Planner Ron Hough, City Administrator David Kucera, Fire Chief David . Penicook, and Planning Commission Secretary Luci Miller. Commissioner George Freeman had previously indicated that he would be unable to attend tonight's meeting. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 6, 1981 Planning Commission Meeting Commissioner Himmelman made a motion to approve the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of October 6, 1981; and Commissioner Novasad seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. All Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence was brought before the Planning Commission at this meeting. PUBLIC APPEARANCES No public appearances were made at this Planning Commission meeting. BUSINESS A. Review of Stonecreek #3 Subdivision Agreement, Whit-Law Properties, Inc. , Applicant Chief Penicook advised that there has not yet been reached suitable agreement with Whit-Law Properties, Inc. , and that this matter would be taken up by the Planning Commission at a later date. B. Minor Land Partition, 447 Grand Avenue, Tax Lot 1100, J.C. Map Page 372WllBD, Zone R-1, Comp. Plan Designation Low Density Residential Ben Wells , Owner/Applicant Chairman Taylor asked if any of the Commissioners had a conflict of interest with respect to the minor land partition at 447 Grand Avenue. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers October 20, 1981 Page Two Commissioner Himmelman stated that she had a personal, business and monetary interest in this minor land partition. Commissioner Frederick then asked Commissioner Himmelman what her business in- terest was in this piece of property; and Commissioner Himmelman advised that this piece of property was listed with the Bruce Bauer Real Estate office in Central Point and that she was the broker- manager of that office. Mayor Jones felt that since there was a quorum present, Commissioner Himmelman should remove herself from participating in this decision. Chief Penicook presented the following Exhibits: Exhibit A - The application for a Minor Land Partition; Exhibit B - A map of the area; and Exhibit C - A Staff Report recommending approval. He also advised that Candy Rayburn was present to represent the applicant and answer any questions that the Commissioners might have. Candy Rayburn came forward and presented pictures of the parcel in question, and the pictures were marked Exhibit D. She pointed out that there were other lots in the area with frontage widths that did not meet the minimum requirement; i.e. , 38.1' , 48.04' , 48' , etc. , and asked that the Planning Commission waive the fee for the variance for Parcel 1. Chief Penicook advised the Commission that in the past there has been a lack of consistency as to whether or not a variance fee is charged in addition to the minor land partition fee when a variance is required in addition to a minor land partition. Commissioner Novasad felt that the Planning Commission should set a policy to follow; and that if we cancel the fee at this time, it would be necessary to make that the practice. Mayor Jones stated that in most cases there is not a minor land partition and a variance at the same time, so maybe the variance fee could be waived. Chief Penicook suggested that the Planning Commission should handle this situation by adopting a practice that if both meetings, one for the variance and one for the minor land partition, are held on the same evening, there would be one fee; and if the meetings were held on two separate evenings, there would be two separate fees. Chairman Taylor then indicated that he felt the minor land parti- tion should be approved and asked for a motion, with the stipulation that the variance hearing would take place at a later date. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers October 20, 1981 Page Three Commissioner Frederick made a motion that the minor land partition application made by Ben Wells at 447 Grand Avenue be approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the conditions as outlined in the attached Staff Report, Exhibit C, and that the $100 variance fee be waived. Commissioner Christy seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, abstain; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. The majority of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. B. Preliminary Development Plan The Meadows - A P.U.D. , J.C. Map Page 372W11A Zone R-3, Comp. Plan Designation Medium Density, LaNier Associates, Agent Chief Penicook presented the following Exhibits : Exhibit A - A letter from Michael LaNier; Exhibit B - Map of the P.U.D. ; Exhibit C - Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCR' s) ; and Exhibit D - A Staff Report recommending approval subject to the conditions of the Staff Report and any conditions placed on the proposal by the Planning Commission. Mike LaNier, Planning Consultant, 1111 Stevens Street, Medford, came forward. He advised that Phase 1 of the project had been completed as a mobile home park, but that at this time mobile home financing is virtually impossible. It is his concept to allow partitioning of the park into individually saleable lots, so that purchasers could actually purchase the real estate. This would make the financing process easier. Public improvements have been paid for and will be owned by the Homeowner's Association. He further addressed the Planning Commission on the questions raised by Staff. (1) With respect to Item 1 of the Staff Report, Mr. LaNier advised that that area of the original Phase 4 area south of Mountain View Drive near Hopkins Road, consisting of 66 spaces, previously referred to as a "Commercial Reserve" should be changed to an "Open Space Reserve". He also advised that at such time as Phase 4 is developed as part of the P.U.D. , a preliminary plat would be submitted to the Planning Commission. (2) With respect to Item 2 of the Staff Report, the question of the intended use for the triangular piece of property which is on the extreme east side of the development was raised. Mr. LaNier advised that this leased area of 1.9 acres will be used for storage of recreational vehicles . (3) With respect to Item 3 of the Staff Report which refers to the City needing an easement for a 12" sanitary sewer near the east side of the development dedicated, Mr. LaNier indicated that there would be no problem with this and that it would be taken care of on the preliminary plat. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers October 20, 1981 Page Four (4) With respect to Item 4 of the Staff Report which states that the CCR's do not address the fact that construction shall comply with the Central Point Municipal Code, Mr. LaNier advised that he would be more than happy to interject the language into the CCR's so that the Municipal Code will take priority. It was implied that the CCR's were subject to City codes, but the language will be clarified. (5) With respect to Item 5 of the Staff Report, the Staff felt that the CCR's indicate that some common property may be dedicated to the City, and that it should be clear that Section 17.68.140, B.1. indicates that the public body has an option to accept or reject this dedication. Mr. LaNier stated that this language would also be clarified. (6) With respect to Item 6 of the Staff Report which states that the CCR' s should indicate that the City has the authority to enforce provisions of improvement and maintenance of common spaces if necessary (Section 17. 68.140D), Mr. LaNier felt that this was also implied and stated that the language would be clarified. (7) With respect to Item 7 of the Staff Report which states that the CCR's do not specifically address the issue of maintenance of storm sewers, again, Mr. LaNier felt that this was implied and stated that the language would be clarified. (8) With respect to Item 8 of the Staff Report which states that the park fees should be clarified, and that currently, we collect $50, as per agreement, for each space as it is developed, Mr. LaNier felt that the current agreement should be maintained at $50 for each space. In a supplement to the Staff Report, Chief Penicook advised that presently the ordinance called for a fee of $600 per 6,000 square foot lot, and that it was Staff's feeling that the $50 fee per space should be modified. (9) With respect to Item 9 of the Staff Report which states that it should be specified that City and State Codes take precedent over the CCR's, the Association rules and decisions by the Board of Directors where there is a conflict of interpretation, Mr. LaNier again stated that he felt this was implied and stated that the language would be clarified. (10) With respect to Item 10 of the Staff Report which states that the use of shake shingles should be prohibited where another structure is within ten feet, Mr. LaNier stated that there would be no pro- blem with complying with this provision. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers October 20, 1981 Page Five (11) With respect to Item 11 of the Staff Report which states that there needs to be clarification as to the effect of "approval" for construction by The Meadows as opposed to approval by the Central Point Building Department, Mr. LaNier indicated that this language would be clarified to indicate that the Central Point Building Department issues the final approval prior to construction. (12) With respect to Item 12 of the Staff Report which states that there needs to be clarification concerning the construction of recreation building(s) as required by Section 5. 32. 270 which requires 50 square feet of recreational building for each of the first 100 spaces and then 35 square feet for each additional space, and whether this requirement should be applied only to the currently existing structures or should it be applied to the entire project, Mr. LaNier felt that the developers were providing more than sufficient recreational facilities for a project of this type. (13) With respect to Items 13 through 17 of the Staff Report, which deal with various aspects which are required for approval of a Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development, Mr. LaNier advised that all of these requirements would be presented at a later date, when the preliminary plat is sub- mitted for approval. Chief Penicook advised that the only problem that Staff sees at this time is Item 12 of the Staff Report which has to do with the construc- tion of recreational building(s). Mr. LaNier felt that this item, too, could be worked out. Mayor Jones asked Mr. LaNier who would be responsible for the main- tenance of water, sewer, streets, sidewalks, etc. , since these items do not comply with City standards. Mr. LaNier advised that these items would be the responsibility of the Homeowner's Association. After considerable discussion during which Administrator Kucera pointed out the new and old ordinances concerning park fees , it was decided that Items 8 and 12 of the Staff Report would be deleted and that the Planning Commission would request Staff and the pro- ponent to reach an agreement concerning park fees and recreational facilities. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers October 20, 1981 Page Six Commissioner Frederick asked about home occupations, such as an auto repair business being allowed in the park, and Commissioner Novasad asked if everyone who purchased a lot in the park was required to belong to the Homeowner's Association and would all homeowners be under the jurisdiction of the CCR's. Mr. LaNier advised that the CCR's were very strict in nature, and that there were no home occupations allowed in the park. He further advised that everyone who purchased a lot was subject to the CCR's . Mayor Jones asked if future phases of the development would meet the City's requirements for water and sewer, and Mr. LaNier indicated that they would. Commissioner Himmelman made a motion to pass a resolution, #34, recommending the approval of the Preliminary Development Plan for The Meadows - A P,U.D. subject to Items 1 through 17 of the Staff Report, with the exception of Items 8 and 12, with Items 8 and 12 being resolved by Staff and the proponent according to the direction of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Frederick seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes ; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. All Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Chairman Taylor called a five minute recess at 8:45 P.M. Chairman Taylor called the meeting back to order at 8: 50 P.M. D. Review of Class A and Class B Nonconforming Uses Planner Ron Hough provided a review of the material he had prepared on Nonconforming Uses. Ron indicated that many nonconforming uses were created, unavoidably, by the new Zoning Ordinance. The Ordinance calls for two types of nonconforming uses, Type A - those nonconforming uses which are compatible with adjacent uses and are not expected to have any adverse impacts on future development, and Type B - those present uses that are not only nonconforming, but are also badly deteriorated, are incompatible with surrounding uses or which are detrimental to the area or to future growth. Type A uses remain nonconforming but are permitted to expand, improve and otherwise use the property as if it were a permitted use. Type B uses are those that are in the immediate path of development, are substandard, poorly maintained or detrimental to the area. Type B uses will not be permitted to expand. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers October 20, 1981 Page Seven Chairman Taylor asked if the Planning Commission would like more time to review the proposal . Administrator Kucera stated that Attorney Carter advised that a Public Hearing must be held before this document can be adopted. Chief Penicook made a suggestion that if the Planning Commissioners are in substantial agreement with the theory presented, they should review the affected properties and then come back and ask Ron Hough specific questions. Chairman Taylor then suggested a work study session be held prior to the Public Hearing. Commissioner Himmelman suggested that the Com- missioners review the designations and bring questions to the work study session. The properties were then divided amongst the Commissioners as follows: Taylor - Exhibit D Christy - Exhibits C & H Himmelman - Exhibit A Frederick - Exhibit G Novasad - Exhibits F, I & J Freeman - Exhibit E Once the Commissioners have had a chance to look at the properties listed in their Exhibits , they will bring any possible questions of interpretation back to the work study session. Administrator Kucera advised that the work study session be held at the next Planning Commission Meeting on November 3, 1981; and that the Public Hearing be set for either November 17, 1981 or December 1, 1981 . The date will be determined after talking with Attorney Carter. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Frederick brought up the issue of traffic control devices for the I-5 overpass . Planner Ron Hough advised that he has talked with the Department of Transportation in Roseburg about the possibility of widening the bridge on the north side. There is going to be a Public Hearing at the Grants Pass City Hall on October 27, 1981 at 7:30 P.M. and anyone interested should attend. Chief Penicook then read a letter from Mayor Jones to Commissioner Dana Peters thanking him for his contribution to the City. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers October 20, 1981 Page Eight Administrator Kucera commended Ron Hough on his thorough work in preparing the Nonconforming Uses document. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Himmelman made a motion to adjourn the meeting, and Commissioner Novasad seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Novasad, yes; Himmelman, yes; Frederick, yes; Christy, yes. All Commissioners voted in favor of the motion to adjourn and the motion carried. Chairman Taylor adjourned the meeting at 9: 30 P.M.