Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 2, 1982 I Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 City Council Chambers MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairman Orrin Frederick called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. He then introduced the new Planning Commission Secretary, Maureen Tanhoff. Chairman Frederick stated he spoke to Commissioner Owen Christy who is in the process of relocating to Southern California where he has found work. As he will not be returning for several months , he has tendered his verbal resignation from the Planning Commission. Commissioner Christy indicated that he really enjoyed serving on the Planning Commission and would like the opportunity to serve again should he return to Central Point. ROLL CALL Present were Chairman Orrin Frederick and Commissioners Jack Crumm, Virgil Elbert, Garth Ellard, Louise Novasad and Charles Piland. Excused was Commissioner Owen Christy. Also present was Councilmember Donna Higginbotham and staff members present were City Administrator David Kucera, Fire Chief Don Paul and Planning Commission Secretary Maureen Tanhoff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Chairman Frederick stated there were no Planning Commission meetings in October due to lack of business and asked if there were any questions or corrections of the minutes of the last meeting held September 21 , 1982. Commissioner Piland stated that he would like his name spelled correctly. Motion was made by Commissioner Piland to approve the minutes as corrected. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Ellard . Roll call vote: Crumm, yes; Elbert, yes; Ellard, yes; Novasad, yes ; Piland, 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. Public Hearing for the Planning Commission to decide on a Conditional Use Permit Application for a second hand store in a C-5 zone at 57 South Front Street. Don Paul advised the Commission that Shirley Rutherford, 587 Beall Lane, 8 has applied for a Conditional Use Permit to open a second hand store at 57 South Front Street, which is located in a C-5 zone. Usual items for sale will be new and used appliances, household kitchen ware, new and used I 0 Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 Page 2 tools , and miscellaneous hardware. The applicant is proposing to put down a crushed rock parking surface' to the rear of the building and pro- vide signs indicating, off-street parking. The following exhibits were presented to the Planning Commission: Application for Conditional Use Permit; Notice of Public Hearing; Copy of Filing 'Fee receipt; and Burden of Proof Statement. Don, Paul asked that the Planning Commission include in their consideration for approval the adopting 'of the Resolution No. 62 approving the Findings of Fact. Chairman Frederick asked the Commission if there :are any conflicts of interest regarding this issue and there were none expressed. The Chairman then declared the Public Hearing open and asked that the appli- cant, Shirley Rutherford, come forward to address the Commission. He then advised her that she would have 30 minutes in which to present any facts that might aid the Commission in their decision. He also advised her that she could bring forth any witnesses on her behalf at this time. Mrs. Rutherford could think of nothing further to add at that time. Chairman Frederick asked Mrs. Rutherford if her business would encompass the entire building at that address and her response was that it would. He then asked her- approximately how many square feet were in the building, at which time her husband spoke from the audience saying the square footage was about 6,000� sq. ft. - Mr. Rutherford also 'dded that the busi- ness would mainly entail the sale of used furniture along with a few used appliances. Chairman Frederick asked that Mr. Rutherford also, come forward. The Chairman then: asked approximately how many parking spaces: would be avail- able in the rear of the building. Mr. Rutherford stated there would be four or five with two additional spaces on the south side of the building in addition to the curb. Mr. Rutherford added that ,they previously owned the Trade Fair in Medford, which was also a second hand store, and that they seldom had more than two cars in the parking area at a time. He stated he could see no potential problems as far ,as access was concerned and did not foresee that there would be any traffic hazard created. Mr. Rutherford also did not think their loading and unloading would create any type of hazard. Chairman Frederick expressed his concern regarding access as that block is criss-crossed by alleys. Mr. Rutherford again indicated that he did not believe there would be a problem and that they chose the building because they liked the access._ He then stated that he and his wife had been in the second hand store business before in Medford and .'had to move due to the fact that their other building leaked excessively. Chairman Frederick asked if they planned on holding any auctions at the site and the, Rutherfords stated they did not. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 Page 3 Mr. Rutherford advised the Commission that all loading and unloading would be done at night to further alleviate any possibility of traffic obstruction. He also stated they would be putting A-B rock down in the parking area in back and blading it in, which would encourage people to use the parking area. Mr. Rutherford stated his family liked Central Point and that is why they chose it when they were forced to close their busi- ness in Medford due to the roof being ruined by rain. Commissioner Piland asked if they would have an entrance in the back of the building and Mr. Rutherford said they would and that the landlord would have no objections to their enlarging that entrance. Commissioner Piland stated he didn't believe parking would be allowed on the south side of the building and the rest of the Commissioners as well as the Rutherfords believed otherwise. Mr. Rutherford emphasized they would not store mer- chandise on the outside of the building because they desire the business to have a neat and orderly appearance. He stated the inside would be arranged like rooms of a house. Commissioner Ellard stated he was glad that they would not be storing merchandise outside and asked what type of a sign they planned to have. Mr. Rutherford stated there is already an attachment for a 4' x 8' plywood sign. O Commissioner Crumm asked if their loading and unloading at night would disturb the nearby residents. Mr. Rutherford stated the homes were a good distance away and that the loading and unloading would be done inside quietly and with dollies. Chairman Frederick asked if there was a door large enough to accommodate a .vehicle and Mr. Rutherford stated there was a 12 foot door. Commissioner Novasad stated she has lived in the area for 26 years and didn't believe noise would be a problem. Her only concern was that the site didn't look like a junkyard. Mr. Rutherford assured the Commission that it would not and cited business people in Central Point that the Commission could contact to vouch for the Rutherfords . He also invited the Commissioners to come and take a look once they are moved in and established. Chairman Frederick asked if they planned to paint the structure. The Rutherfords stated they did not, that they thought it looked pretty decent as is. Chairman Frederick expressed his disapproval of wild colors. Mr. Rutherford stated he feels there is a definite demand in Central Point for a second hand store due to the low prices they intend to offer especially during the present economic situation. Chairman Frederick asked if anyone in the audience would object to this proposed business and there were no objections. Chairman Frederick then Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 Page 4 declared the Public Hearing closed and stated the matter was now in the hands of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Piland stated that all criteria seems to have been met for the Conditional Use Permit but believes a condition should be added stating there is to be no outside. storage of merchandise.; Commissioner Piland also indicated that according to #4 of Section 17.76.060 stating that surfacing of parking areas are subject to specification, another condition will have to be included requiring the parking lot surface to be improved. Chairman Frederick stated the only other thing the Planning Commission should be concerned with is Item D, #9 of Section 17 .76.060 citing regu- lation of noise, vibration, odors, etc. , and advised that there be an additional condition attached requiring: the noise level during loading and unloading be kept to a minimum especially during. late night and early morning hours. Mr. Rutherford asked if A-B rock would be sufficient for the parking area. At Chairman Frederick's request, Mr. Rutherford explained that._it is a base of crushed rock that is put'.down and compacted before asphalt, how- ever, in this case there would be no asphalt put down over it. Chairman Frederick stated that the Code requires the .parking lot be composed of ' durable materials for all weather use. Chairman Frederick stated the Chair would entertain-a motion to pass a Resolution for approval. of the Conditional Use Permit with the following conditions: 1 . That the parking area 's surface be improved; 2. That there- is to be no outside storage or display of merchandise; 3. That noise caused by loading and unloading be- kept to a minimum during late night and early morning hours. Mr. Kucera added that the motion should include adopting the. applicant's Findings of Fact Statement as presented. Chairman Frederick agreed and. stated the Statement as presented would be included in the motion. Don Paul indicated the Statement of Findings of Fact would be included as "Exhibit A" . Commissioner Elbert made a motion to approve the application for Conditional Use Permit by passing Resolution #62 including the Statement of the Findings of Fact as presented by applicantas "Exhibit A" , along with the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission as follows: 1 . The parking area's surface to be improved; 2'. There is to be no out- side storage or display of merchandise; 3. Noise caused by loading and unloading be kept to a minimum during late night and early morning hours. A second to the motion was made by Commissioner Novasad. Roll call vote: Crumm, yes; Elbert, yes; Ellard, yes; Novasad, -yes; Piland, yes . All the Commissioners voted in favor of. the motion, and the motion carried. Chairman Frederick declared the application for Conditional Use Permit submitted by the Rutherfords was granted,and they may apply for a business license. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 Page 5 B. Request for the Planning Commission to make a determination on what constitutes an attachment between two separate structures. Don Paul addressed the Commission in regard to a question that has been raised concerning what an owner or builder can do to connect two separate structures to create an attachment which would allow the structures to be less than ten feet apart. Municipal Code, Section 17.20.060, requires detached accessory buildings to have a minimum of ten feet clearance to the primary structure. On some lots and in certain instances, a ten foot separation is either not possible or compliance .is in opposition with design characteristics. Staff would like the Commission to determine if structural connections of decorative design would create a satisfactory attachment between two buildings and therefore allow reduction of the ten foot separation required by Section 17 .20.060 of the Municipal Code. Any deviation from the present Municipal Code must still conform with the Uniform Building Code. Anything closer than six feet would have to have fire protective walls. Commissioner Ellard asked Don Paul if the ten foot separation was required for fire prevention purposes. Mr. Paul answered that it was not required for fire, but is a zoning requirement preventing buildings from being too close°together, although it would also be a fire deterrant. Chairman Frederick stated that with our Municipal Code requiring the ten foot separation, the builders are in need of a line of distinction as to what is and is not considered an attachment. Chairman Frederick outlined different styles of attachment used in the past such as breeze-ways, arch- ways, continuous roof lines, lattice work and arbors . The Commission needs to establish which are acceptable under present Ordinances. Commissioner Ellard stated he felt continuous roof lines would be accept- able but not lattice work, and that he did not know of anything else in new construction that would be appropriate. Chairman Frederick stated he would prefer continuous roof lines of the same type of structure as the primary building and of the same materials. He is not in favor of lattice work. Chairman Frederick asked if they should establish that the attachment be of a roof-type structure for rain protection. Commissioner Ellard thought that it should, as this will basically concern garages. The Commission agreed and concurred that the roof structure be the same as that of the present or primary building. It was also agreed that the new structure not detract from the neighborhood. Commissioner Novasad asked if the new structure should be permanent or decorative and the Commission agreed that lattice work would be considered decorative and not in order. Commissioner Piland asked Don Paul if there was anything in the Building Code pertaining to this in particular. Mr. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 Page 6 Paul stated there was not and advised the Commission that the request came from; Kingsland Manor where they have detached garages and the lots are too small to comply with the ten foot separation requirement. They had hoped to use some type of lattice work to comply. They were not in favor of continuing the roof lines which is why this is before the Planning Commission. If the Commission makes the decision to stay with the present Code, then it needs to. state. what type of design is required. Mr. Kucera advised that if continuous roof lines were to be considered, then a minimum breeze way width should be established. In response to Commissioner Ellard's question regarding possible irregular facings of garages because of odd-shaped lots, Don Paul stated it would make it a little more difficult to build but not impossible. Commissioner Ellard asked if it is. absol•utely necessary that they match."' Mr. Paul said it was if there were gables and that lines should match if elevation is the same. Don Paul suggested staff work on the wording for a determination and the Commission agreed. Commissioner: Piland reiterated-he was against all decorative type designs. Chairman Frederick indicated he feels very strongly about a minimum of three foot width distance due to rain pro- blems and difficulty caused to handicapped people. Commissioner Elbert stated if there was less than three foot width, it would be wasting ' space, money and would prevent aesthetic continuity. . Commissioner Ellard made. a motion to table the determination on this matter until the next meeting so that staff may reword and more clearly define the proposal. Commissioner Piland seconded the motion: Roll call vote: Crumm, yes; Elbert, yes; Ellard, yes ; Novasad, yes; Piland, yes . All the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Chairman Frederick called a ten minute recess, W8:07 p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 8: 20 p.m: by Chairman Frederick. C. Request for the Planning Commission to determine whether construction of a new garage in an R-3 zone is allowed to 'replace an existing garage in its present location or whether it 'must conform to present set back conditions. Don Paul addressed the Planning Commission in regard to Mr. Mark Hale's request for a building permit to replace an old existing garage with a new one with space for automobile parking and shop facilities. The exist- ing garage has a dirt floor and does not have .a . foundation. Mr. Hale has already made considerable improvements to the property with this being the last project to complete The set back restrictions on the south side Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 Page 1 have required staff to deny Mr. Hale's request unless the Planning Commission deems it proper to allow the new construction to relocate to the present location of the existing structure. Mr. Paul further explained that this is not being proposed as a Variance at this time. The Planning Commission is being asked to decide if a new garage can be built where the existing one does not comply. Mr. Paul also submitted a drawing of Mr. Hale's plan including the entire property and pointed out that the property line is well back of the curb because of the 80 foot right of way on Ash Street, and the existing garage is only 7' 3" back of the southern property line. The diagram shows exactly where the proposed new garage would be built in relation to the rest of the property. The existing garage is right on the property line. Mr. Kucera stated that the Ordinance requires that if an existing struc- ture is destroyed by at least 50%, the new structure must conform with current Ordinances. Mr. Frederick stated that if Mr. Hale merely moved the garage, this would not apply. Mr. Kucera added that it would depend on if it had been classified as a nonconforming A or B structure, and he doubted if it had been classified at all . Commissioner Ellard suggested that Mr. and Mrs. Hale come forward to address the Commission which they did. Chairman Frederick confirmed with ' Mr. Hale that according to the diagram, there is more than adequate dis- tance between the house and garage, indicating that the proposed location could just be moved over three feet inside the property towards the house and it would be about 1-112 feet wider and two feet longer. Chairman Frederick then asked Mr. Hale to outline his plans. Mr. Hale stated he would tear down the old structure and prepare the ground for cement foundation with mud sills and frame the new structure as you would frame a house with the roof being of the same materials and structure as the house roof. He plans to install an electric overhead aluminum door, and construct a window and regular door on the side that faces the back of the house. Chairman Frederick complimented Mr. Hale on the improvements made to the property already. Mr. Hale expressed pride in his accomplishments and Mrs. Hale commented on being anxious to have a garage for her car. Mr. Hale presented the Commission with photographs of his property and sur- rounding properties , most of which do not conform with present Ordinances. Mr. Hale stated the building of a new garage would add a lot to the neighborhood. They also stated it would be painted the same as the house. The Hale's advised the Commission that to change the site of the new garage would incur problems with power lines and would necessitate the removal of two trees. Chairman Frederick asked Mr. Hale if he had established any monuments showing the exact property boundaries. Mr. Hale stated that he knew of only one monument and that a surveyor had indicated to him that it would be an involved process to pinpoint the others. Planning Commission. Meeting November 2, 1982 Page 8 In answer to Commissioner Ellard 's question, Mr. Hale stated the new garage would be three feet from the back property. line. Chairman Frederick reiterated the set back requirements regarding accessory buildings in a R-3 zone and the restrictions outlined. After considerable discussion, it was ascertained by the Commission that the issue at hand is whether to make an exceptionito the Ordinance or make a special provision that because there is an existing garage there now, a new one can be built there; and if that is the case, then the applicants should apply for a Variance and come before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing where: the Planning Commission could make a determination and the citizens would have an opportunity to voice any opinions . In response to Commission discussion, Mr. Hale stated he had considered putting in a carport next to the old garage, but decided against it because it would take up a great deal of his yard and the problems of the old structure would still exist. Commissioner Elbert expressed that he does not oppose improving the pro- perty, but if the Commission approves this as proposed, problems could arise in the future due to an exception being made. Commissioner Ellard elaborated that the City Codes were developed in such a manner that if an old structure is removed, a new one would have to be built to comply with the present Codes. The idea is that as time goes 'by, those old buildings will come down and when they do, they. will be replaced with buildings that are built according to Code. Commissioner Ellard also expressed that he felt that a Variance would be- in order to give other people the chance to voice any opinions regarding this proposal . Otherwise, exceptions will continue to be made. The Commission was in agreement that the Hales should apply for a Variance in, this situation. Chairman Frederick explained that the Hales would be applying for a Variance to the set back limitation and would come before the Planning Commission at a Public Hearing, if that is their decision. The cost would be $100. This process allows the Planning Commission to find out if there are citizens who woul.d oppose the project. If all evidence is 'favorable, there is strong indication that the Planning Commission would grant approval for them to -build the new garage as planned. If there is evidence to the contrary, it would not be. granted. Mr. Hale stated that if the set back requirements have to be that strictly enforced, then he will not build the new garage and let the old one collapse. Chairman Frederick asked Don Paul if he would set up a time to get together with the Hales to further explain the situation and the Variance process . Mr. Paul and Mr. Hale agreed. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 Page 9 D. The Planning Commission is requested to determine if they should allow mobile home installations as temporary accessory buildings in residential zones for use by persons incapable of maintaining a residence. Don Paul addressed the Commission in regard to requests that have been made as to whether a mobile home may be installed on residential lots in addition to existing dwelling units. Needs presented have been for the housing of persons incapable of maintaining a separate residence without 24 hour care. The Municipal Code presently restricts mobile home instal- lations to mobile home parks only. If the Planning Commission gives consideration to allowing this type of installation of mobile homes , staff suggests that conditions be placed upon each applicant which would restrict any deviation from the initial approval 's intent. Mr. Paul also presented, for the Commission's consideration, a list of conditions that would have to be met by each applicant. Mr. Paul stated that Jackson County and Shady Cove presently have Ordinances that allow mobile home installations on tots and the intent is for the care of infirmed people such as an elderly parent rather than having to admit that person to a convalescent home. It is not recommended that this apply to hardship cases such as newly married couples. Staff would like a determination from the Planning Commission if this proposal should be pursued for drafting an Ordinance. There was considerable discussion on how large a lot should be required to allow this. Don Paul stated that the 15,000 sq. ft. outlined in the staff report was approximately 1 /3 of an acre. Mr. Paul acknowledged a Mrs. Wall in the audience who is from the Snowy Butte Subdivision whom this request pertains to. The intent is not to place a mobile home on a nor- mal size residential lot. Mr. Kucera stated it was mainly intended for larger size lots. Commissioner Ellard stated that certain specifications might be in order as to type and size of mobile homes required. Chairman Frederick expressed his approval to pursue this matter further and that property site plan reviews would be in order. In response to Commissioner Ellard 's question, Chairman Frederick stated that a Public Hearing would be in order to adopt this policy. Mr. Kucera - stated that it would have to be decided also if incorporating this into policy would involve an amendment or addition to the Mobile Home Ordinances or to the Zoning Ordinances. Chairman Frederick excused Commissioner Elbert at 9: 20 p.m. to go to work. Planning Commission Meeting November 2, 1982 , Page 10 Councilmember Higginbotham stated she would like the lot size require- ment reduced to 13,000 sq. ft. so that more people could take advantage of this opportunity. Chairman Frederick said that this could be consi- dered. Mr. Kucera stated that this could involve months in the adoption process especially if changing the Zoning Ordinances is involved. Chairman Frederick asked if anyone would take exception to this project and no one did. Mr. Kucera asked if the Commission had a certain size of mobile home in mind and Chairman Frederick suggested 1 ,600 sq. ft. Commissioner Ellard asked if that would still prov.,ide for set back restrictions, and Don Paul stated the situation would be addressed as it would be for accessory buildings in regard to set backs and the ten foot separation requirements. The Commission also discussed whether travel trailers and motor homes should be allowed. Definitions would have to be set as to what consti- tutes mobile homes , motor homes and travel trailers and it was agreed that the Department of Motor Vehicles would be consulted. Also, the sewer systems would 'differ for mobile homes and recreational vehicles . Chairman Frederick stated that a Public Hearing would be in order and also some input from the City Council would be necessary. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Ellard suggested that the staff and Planning Commission be a little more observant when approving plans in the future as he noticed a building that had been approved and built with a metal roof and was quite unsightly. The Commission agreed. ADJOURNMENT . Commissioner Ellard made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Piland seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Crumm, yes; Elbert„excused; Ellard, yes ; Novasad, yes ; Piland, yes. All of the Commissioners present voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Chairman Frederick adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m.