Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMarch 16, 1982 City Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Meeting March 16, 1982 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairman Orrin Frederick called the meeting to order at 7 :03 P.". ROLL CALL Present were Chairman Orrin Frederick and Commissioners Owen Christy, Garth Ellard, George Freeman, Pat Himmelman and Chuck Piland . Commissioner Louise Novasad had left word that she was called out of town. Also present were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmember Donna Higginbotham and City Adminis- trator David Kucera . APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 2, 1982 Planning Commission Meeting A motion was made by Commissioner Piland to approve the minutes of this meeting. A second to the motion was made by Garth Ellard . All Commis- sioners voted in favor of the motion. CORRESPONDENCE AND PUBLIC APPEARANCES There was no correspondence up before the Planning Commission and no one came forward under public appearances. BUSINESS Site Plan Review fora-Garage at 148 Cedar Street; Zone:- R-3; Comprehensive Plan: High Density Multi-family; J .C. map page 37 2W 11BC, Tax Lot 3100; E.G. McDermott, applicant, Administrator Kucera presented a copy of the 1068 Plan Review application submitted 3/04/82 and a copy of the applicant 's drawing showing the proposed garage improvement and a copy of the applicant' s drawing showing the con- struction details and a Staff Report dated March 12, 1982 recommending approval . Commissioner Freeman questioned if a 5-foot setback adjacent to an alley was proper. Administrator Kucera read the existing ordinances for an R-3 Zone which state side yard setbacks along streets should be 20 feet. In the definition section of the ordinances an alley is included as a street. Chairman Frederick adjourned the meeting to allow Staff to research whether or not an alley existed on the south side of Mr . McDermott' s property. After a brief recess he called the meeting back to order. Mayor Jones reported that research indicates there is an alley adjacent to Mr. McDermott's property. However; the portion of the alley westerly of Mr. McDermott's property was vacated . Therefore it is not a through alley. He recommended that the Planning Commission approve the request to build a garage as presented and have Mr. John Allen (Building Inspector) check out the details later. page 2 Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1982 There was a discussion on the definition of a street and an alley. A motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman to approve the Site Plan Review at 148 Cedar Street with the minor corrections on the plans submitted as indicated by the Staff Report and with the condition that the approval comply with the Central Point Municipal Code. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Christy. All Commissioners voted in favor of the motion. Fence Variance at 703 Sandra Lane; Zone: R-1 • Comp Plan: Low Density Single Family; William Mallory, applicant. Administrator Kucera presented the application for a variance filed 3/12/82 and the site plan presented by the applicant with the application. In addition, he presented information provided by the applicant just prior to the Planning Commission meeting which consisted of reasons for approval and a vicinity map and a site plan map. A copy of Municipal Code 15.20.070 regarding variance requirements was also read . In the following discussion the following facts were presented by Mr. Mallory: The area within the fence was to be used only for a storage area and for a recreational vehicle storage. The fence would be made of cedar and be inset 6 feet from the property line and 12 feet from face of curb. He submitted 4 pictures showing the area where the fence was to be built. Mayor Jones felt the proposed fence would not block any views and would not present any hazards to the health and safety of the neighborhood and would be an asset to the people applying for the fence variance. Mr. Mallory stated that he felt his property was set apart from other proper- ties in the area because of the store adjacent to his backyard . His backyard has an existing 6-foot chainlink fence which extends to the 20-foot setback line and then is reduced in height to 3, feet to the property line. There is no driveway available for access to his proposed recreational vehicle parking area . There will be a gate which is a part-swinging and part-rolling gate in the proposed fence. All the houses in the area face Hopkins except_ his. He presented statements from the people living at the following addresses that they have no objections to �the proposed fence: Mr, and Mrs. Ronald Jamison, 733 Sandra Lane; Bob Burket, 713 Sandra Lane; Mr. and Mrs. A.W. Avery, 732 Sandra Lane; Mr. and Mrs. Alvin Gomes, 712 Sandra Lane; Bill and Wilman Hoff- man, 743 Sandra Lane; Gene and Dorothy Cordonier, 742 Sandra Lane. Chairman Frederick asked if there was anyone in the audience in opposition to .the proposal. No one came forward. Commissioner Freeman felt that the proposal would be a conflict with the Stop-N-Go Market traffic. Mayor Jones felt the proposal provided adequate visibility because it was 13 feet from the curb. page 3 Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1982 Commissioner Ellard commented that there was an existing tree along the sidewalk which would prove a visibility problem. Commissioner Freeman felt that the tree was illegally planted and could be removed . Chairman Frederick noted that all other properties on Hopkins Road face the street. However, on this particular property the side yard was adjacent to Hopkins. There were other trees also along Sandra Lane and the shopping center had an access drive on the east side of its property. Commissioner Freeman felt that the fence ordinance anticipated that there would be corner lots which must comply. And the commercial area to the east of this property would generate more traffic than residential . Commissioner Christy noted that the stop line on Sandra Lane was 13 feet back and that a driver would actually be five feet further back from the stop line. Mayor Jones noted that traffic would be coming onto Hopkins Road from the right lane of Sandra. He felt that there would be a reasonable use and en- joyment of this land to allow the request and other properties would not be affected. Kids will still be able to destroy personal property and throw paper over any fence that was only 3? feet high. The 6-foot fence would also be an asset to the store. Commissioner Freeman also noted that the request really was to allow passing or parking of an RV vehicle which would be higher than the 6-foot fence. And if the request was allowed, the Planning Commission would be also allow- ing a side yard for recreational vehicle parking. Chairman Frederick stated that corner lots are intentionally required to be larger to allow for more yard space. Commissioner Freeman felt that the applicant already has adequate use of the land compared to all the other corner lots in Central Point. All other corner lots have the same restriction as this lot. Commissioner Christy stated that all the other lots along Sandra Lane has enjoyment of 3-sides enclosed . Commissioner Ellard stated that this was an unusual corner lot because it was adjacent to commercial use. Commissioner Himmelman stated that this lot is different from other lots in the area because it is along a major thoroughfare and adjacent to the C-2 commercial zone. The neighborhood supports the applicant ' s request and the applicant has provided necessary information that the Planning Commission needs. page 4 Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1982 Commissioner Christy recalled a previous commercial use which was approved by the Planning Commission and the Planning Commission required that a 6- foot fence be built between commercial and residential use. Special consideration is required in this application because of the commercial use and he felt that the request would not prohibit nor affect the egress and ingress from that commercial use. Chairman Frederick noted that the applicant could probably build a 6-foot fence along his rear lot line up to Hopkins Road because of the adjacent C-2 zone. Commissioner Freeman noted that even the construction of a fence would not stop littering on property in the area . It would only prevent it from going over the fence. A motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman to approve the requested fence variance at 703 Sandra Lane because the variance is necessary to permit the applicant reasonable use and enjoyment of his land in a manner similar to similar properties and that the use and enjoyment of other properties will not be substantially affected. A second to the motion was made by Commis- sioner Ellard. Commissioners Christy, Ellard, Himmelman and Piland voted Yes. Commissioner Freeman voted No; becuase the applicant' s request was not presented in a timely manner and no staff report was available. The ' motion carried. Kosmatka-Corcoran Development East of Cherry Street Administrator Kucera explained the history of the project and reviewed the March 1st, 1982 Staff Report which included as Exhibits 1 and 2 copies of letters from School District #6, and as Exhibits 3 to 11 copies of previous- ly proposed street circulation plans for the land. The question before the Planning Commission was how to develop a street circulation plan for develop- ment of the property owned by Kosmatka and Corcoran . Two general choices were available. One was to develop a plan for a future street circulation pattern which would extend from Cherry Street and continue through the proper- ty joining with an existing public street, or a street plan which extended from Cherry Street and made a loop within the property itself. In addition, the Planning Commission could decide if it wished to have the street circu- lation plan developed as public or private street. The Planning Commission then discussed the advantages and disadvantages of various plans with the developers Mr. Kosmatka and Mr . Corcoran. No con- clusion was reached as to which plan would be the most beneficial for develop- ing the area . The item would be set forward to another Planning Commission agenda. A Resolution Adopting a Policy on Parking There was a discussion on whether or not the resolution should include cri- teria requiring that a need be demonstrated . There were suggestions that the current wording should be modified . It was also suggested that if the page 5 Planning Commission Meeting March 16, 1982 intent to discourage "piggyback" parking was serious, that the requirements for a demonstrated need should be high. A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to approve Resolution No . 51 as drafted. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Himmelman. All Commissioners voted in favor of the motion. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioners Christy and Piland questioned if something could be done about truck parking on Pine Street; especially a truck owned by Tom Mills who parks near Pappy's Pizza and obstructs vision to the intersection. Adminis- trator Kucera advised that he would be willing to write Mr. Mills a letter and request that he park his truck in a manner so that it would not obstruct vision. ADJOURNMENT A motion was made by Commissioner Freeman to adjourn the meeting. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Piland . All Commissioners voted in favor of the motion. Chairman Frederick adjourned the meeting at 9:30 P. M.