Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAugust 2, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1983 City Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Acting Chairman Ellard called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Commissioners Virgil Elbert, Garth Ellard, Jerry Mattey, Louise Novasad, and Charles Piland . Absent were Chairman Orrin Frederick, who was on vacation, and Commissioner Ginger Bitterling, who was excused. Also present were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmembers Jack Crumm, Donna Higgin- botham and Dewane Hood, Citizens Advisory Committee Chairperson Grace Russell , Fire Chief/Building Official Don Paul , Secretary Maureen Tanhoff, and Planner Ron Hough of Rogue Valley Council of Governments . APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Piland made a motion to approve the minutes of the July 5, 1983 Planning Commission medting as typed. Commissioner Elbert seconded the motion. , Roll call vote: Elbert, yes; Mattey, yes ; Novasad, yes ; Piland, yes . All of the 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 Meeting for the Planning Commission to consider the request for annexation of approximately 26 acres by Cornett Lumber Company for land located on the west side of South Front Street further described as Jackson County Map Pages 37 2W 11BC, Tax Lot 4500; 37_.2W IOAD, Tax Lot 900; 37 2W LOAD, Tax Lot 1000; and 37 2W 11BC, Tax Lot 4600, Don Paul read staff report dated July 28, 1983 and read the following exhibits into the record: Exhibit A - Application for Annexation; Exhibit B - Petition for Annexation; Exhibit C - Legal descriptions for parcels 1 , 2, 3, and 4, fur- ther described as Jackson County Assessors Map Pages 37 2W 11BC, Tax Lot 4500; 37 2W 10AD, Tax Lot 900; 37 2W IOAD, Tax Lot 1000; and 37 2W 11BC, Tax Lot 4600; Exhibit D - Citizens Advisory Committee minutes of July 12, 1983; Exhibit E - ' Notice of Public Meeting; and Exhibit F - Certificate of Posting of Notice of Public Meeting. He pointed out that at the Citizens Advisory Committee meeting a motion was made to recommend approval of the Cornett Lumber Company annexa- tion to the City Council . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 2 Roger Cornett, President of Cornett Lumber Company, came forward to answer any questions the Commissioners may have. Acting Chairman Ellard asked Fire Chief Paul if additional fire protection would be required if the annexation takes place. Chief Paul stated the fire protection would be adequate and that the Fire Department had recently per- formed fire inspections at the mill and found it satisfactory and everyone cooperative. Routine inspections will continue to be performed by the Fire Department every 90 days at the mill . Acting Chairman Ellard asked Chief Paul if he had received any feedback from the community concerning pollution caused by the mill . Chief Paul stated that to his knowledge, there has been no complaints . Cornett Lumber Company has made steps to reduce the amount of sawdust that blows across the road, which seems to have proven successful . Acting Chairman Ellard asked Mr. Cornett if the company is connected to City water and sewer already and Mr. Cornett stated that it is . Acting Chairman Ellard asked Mr. Cornett if the company treats the log yard when they create dust. Mr. Cornett stated that they have a log yard watering schedule to reduce dust, but that it is not foolproof. However, U-Mark-It, the 7-11 store and S & M Auto Parts have complimented Cornett Lumber Company on the improvement in controlling the dust over the previous owners of the mill . He stated that they understand the situation of being close to the community and will work to correct any problems . No one came forward to speak in opposition to the annexation request and Act- ing Chairman Ellard closed the Public Meeting. The Planning Commission briefly discussed the improvements that have taken place at the mill since the Cornetts took it over. Commissioner Piland made a motion to pass Resolution No. 75, A Resolution of Recommendation to the Central Point City Council for Annexation of Contiguous Parcels of Property Commonly referred to as Cornett Lumber Company on South Front Street, and to withdraw such Property from Jackson County Fire District No. 3 and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority. Commissioner Elbert seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Elbert, yes; Mattey, yes; Novasad, yes ; Piland, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. B. Consideration of any needed recomendation to the City Council for an ordinance change to allow maximum fence eig t increases in specs Ic situations . Don Paul outlined his staff report dated July 29, 1983. He also explained that the situation has come up as a result of a complaint by Mr. Aguirre who Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 3 lives at 955 North Fifth Street. He stated that the fence between his house and Mr. Kime's had been added to while he was away from home making it approxi- mately nine feet tall . Staff ascertained that there was no permit issued to Mr. Kime and Inspectors George Flanagan and Bob Wilson went out to investigate the situation. They verified that Mr. Kime was in violation of the City's fence ordinance and advised him of such. A follow-up letter was sent to Mr. Kime requesting that the fence be removed or that a variance be applied for. Mr. Kime informed staff that he felt his privacy had been invaded in that Mr. Aguirre's deck is so high that when they are on it, they have full view of his backyard. He built the addition to the fence to prevent this and to pro- tect the privacy of his family. He stated he had no intention of paying the $100.00 variance fee to keep his privacy and that the ordinance should be changed to provide for this. Staff elected to provide the opportunity to all parties involved to present their concerns to the Planning Commission. Staff is seeking direction from the Planning Commission to resolve this matter either by pursuing an ordinance change with the City Council or following through with the variance procedure. Mr. Paul presented to the Commission photographs taken from both backyards. ' He stated that in making a decision, the Commission should consider the follow- ing sections of the Municipal Code: 15.20.010 Compliance with Regulations Required; 15.20.020 Erection on Lots (maximum height requirements) ; and 15. 20.050 Violation--Penalty (if not in conformance) . Mr. Kime, 1065 North Fifth Street, came forward. He stated that he felt some- thing should be done to protect people in these situations as far as privacy is concerned. He has spent considerable time and money on his pool and land- scaping. It is his contention that while the fence addition prevents the Aguirres from looking into his backyard while on their deck, it also deters sound from the Aguirre children. He would like to continue the length of the fence addition so that the Aguirres cannot see into his home while on their deck also. He stated the fence addition was not constructed in an unsightly manner and he bent over the nails on the other side. He stated he had spent $375.00 originally in constructing the fence. With the fence addition, the Aguirres also have privacy. He stated that he did not put the addition up for spiteful reasons . He feels that the Aguirres have complained because with the addition, they cannot see their children when they are playing in the backyard three doors down. Commissioner Piland asked Mr. Kime what he would suggest as a solution. Mr. Kime stated that when someone is proposing to build this type of structure in his backyard and the height will impose upon the privacy of the neighbors, opportunity should be given for the neighbors to raise their fences. He felt that this should apply to any raised structure in a backyard. Commissioner Mattey asked is there was anything in the City ordinances now pertaining to deck height and the answer was no. Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 4 Commissioner Novasad asked Mr. Kime is he was aware that a permit was required to build the fence. He answered that he did not know that he had to obtain a permit to extend the fence, and that if he had known, the same situation would still exist. Commissioner Novasad stated that if we make an exception to the ordinance for him, then everyone would want the same privilege. Commissioner Ellard asked Mr. Kime if he had considered a natural barrier such as trees or bushes. Mr. Kime stated that he had, but that it would require him to move his wood pile and drastically change the landscaping of his yard. Also, it would take to long for the plants to grow sufficiently to provide the same barrier that the fence addition provides . Mr. and Mrs . Dwayne Badger of 1075 North Fifth Street were in the audience and they stated that the fence addition had also solved their privacy problem two doors down. Mrs . Badger asked why the height limitation is set at six feet. Don Paul stated that it was probably set at six feet because that is the length of fence most commonly sold, and that limitation is required to main- tain the appearance of a residential neighborhood. Mr. Kime stated that the burden should lie with the party erecting the high deck to provide the fence to protect the privacy of others. Lydia Bean, 914 North Third Street, was in the audience. She stated that she lives directly behind the Aguirres and that when they use their deck, it intrudes on her privacy also. Commissioner Piland stated that if the City were to require that citizens get permission from their neighbors in order to build something in their backyard, then they would feel unduly restricted as to what they can do with their own property. He also stated that the ordinances cannot be overlooked as they are at this time, but possibly they can be changed for the future. Don Paul suggested, that staff could obtain some samples of how other cities ' ordinances pertain to these types of situations and address the City Council with their findings . The Commission discussed the possibility of having staff review the pool ordi- nances to provide solutions to invading the privacy of others when high decks are constructed around aboveground pools . Commissioner Novasad stated that if the Kimes desire a nine foot fence, accord- ing the City 's present ordinance, they must apply for a variance and pay the $100.00 fee required. Mrs . Badger asked what the penalty is for violating the fence height ordinance. Acting Chairman Ellard read Municipal Code Section 15.20.050 concerning the penalty. Don Paul stated that if Mr. Kime does not approve of the Commission 's decision, he can appeal it to the City Council . Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 5 It was the general consensus of the Planning Commission that staff present the same information on this matter to the City Council for a decision on the present ordinance violation, and request that the ordinance concerning above- ground pools be reviewed as a separate issue. C. 1068 Plan Review - four-plex apartment unit, 134 Alder Street, Central Point. Don Paul read his staff report dated July 29, 1983. Mr. Joe Rehmer came forward to address the Planning Commission. He stated that he has designed the bottom units of the complexlfor handicapped tenants . Mr. Rehmer indicated that he could comply with two of the requirements set forth in the staff report, but that the first one pertaining to the amount of parking spaces presents a problem. He stated that he can adjust his design to include an additional parking space, but does not feel the garages or car- ports should be necessary. He stated that the requirement to have a garage or carport for every unit would make the project much more expensive, and he feels unnecessarily because most handicapped people do not drive cars . Don Paul explained that the requirement is made to prevent the complex from ' having an unsightly parking lot appearance and to provide access in and out of vehicles with protection from bad weather. Commissioner Novasad stated that the complex would be attractive addition to the City, provide tax revenue and fill up an empty space. She asked if there was some way Mr. Rehmer could provide the required parking spaces . Mr. Paul explained that he had advised Mr. Rehmer of the requirements accord- ing to City ordinances and that Mr. Rehmer elected to address the Planning Commission with his plans not including the additional parking spaces or garages. Staff is asking the Planning Commission to make a decision as to whether an exception should be considered or to enforce the requirements. Commissioner Piland stated that he sees nothing unattactive about freestand- ing carports, and that handicapped people take longer to get in and out of vehicles and would appreciate the shelter in bad weather. Commissioner Piland made a motion to approve the construction of the four- plex apartment complex at 134 Alder Street, Central Point, subject to the the following conditions: 1 . Not less than two spaces per dwelling unit, at least one of which shall be a garage or carport, plus one guest space for each of four dwelling units or fraction thereof; 2. Driveways from a public street to a required off-street parking area that serves any R-3 district ' development, with the exception of single and two-family dwellings, shall be a minimum of l8 feet in width and designed for two-way traffic; 3 . Parking spaces for uses other than one and two family dwellings shall be designed so that no backing movements or other maneuvering within a street or other Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 6 public right-of-way shall be necessary. Commissioner Elbert seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Elbert, yes ; Mattey, yes; Novasad, yes; Piland, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. D. Developer presentation for City ordinance requirements concerning "The Village" Planned Unit Development Don Paul read his staff report dated July 29, 1983. Patrick O 'Neal , President, and Dean Coppage, Vice President, Cornerstone Development Corporation came forward. They presented the Commission with a letter dated August 2, 1983 outlining their response to Exhibit B, which is a draft copy of the P.U.D. Agreement provided them by Don Paul . Mr. Coppage outlined the letter verbally and stated that time is of the essence for them as they are in the process of purchasing the property. Their main problem is that they cannot comply with the City's requirement 1 that there be 35 additional parking spaces for the recreational facility within the P.U.D. They are asking the Planning Commission tonight to waive this requirement and approve the project. Acting Chairman Ellard reminded Mr. Coppage and Mr. O 'Neal that at the last Planning Commission meeting, they agreed to provide staff with the necessary information as to how they plan to address the City's requirements according to City ordinances . The information was not provided in time for proper procedures to be followed to process the application with public hearings according to City ordinance. Don Paul explained that at the July 5, 1983 Planning Commission meeting, it was agreed that additional information was needed to seek approval of the Preliminary and Final Development Plans . It was determined if the informa- tion was provided by July 11 , 1983, it would be possible to consider for approval both the Preliminary and Final Development Plans at once at the July 21 , 1983 City Council meeting following a special Planning Commission meeting to be held July 19, 1983. However, the information was not received and the special Planning Commission meeting did not take place on July 19, 1983. Mr. Coppage was supplied with a draft of the P.U.D. Agreement with conditions of approval that staff would be recommending to the Planning Com- mission. There were concerns that would need to be addressed by the developer and presented to the Planning Commission in a staff report before Preliminary Development Plan approval could be considered. The parking situation is a primary concern of staff and has yet to be satisfied. Mr. Coppage and Mr. O'Neal expressed their inability to conform with the addi- tional parking requirement for the recreational facility because the under- ground utilities would have to be altered at considerable time and expense. Also, they have recently been informed of a lien against the property in favor Planning Commission Meeting August 2, 1983 City Council Chambers Page 7 of Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority for approximately $22,000.00. Mr. O 'Neal informed the Commission that the price range of the units would be approximately $49,900.00 if they begin soon. Acting Chairman Ellard advised Mr. Coppage and Mr. O 'Neal that the Planning Commission does not have the authority to approve the P.U.D. application in any way at tonight's meeting as the originally approved plan application has expired and modifications are being proposed as well .by Cornerstone. The Commission discussed the parking requirements and Mr. Paul explained how he arrived at 35 additional parking spaces being necessary for the recreational facility according to Municipal Code Section There was considerable discussion as to what constitutes a public facility. It was agreed by the Planning Commission that the recreational facility pro- posed for the P.U.D. would be considered a public facility. Mayor Jones stated that he felt it was unreasonable for the developers to be putting the Planning Commission on the spot for a decision tonight. Proper procedures according to City ordinances would have to be followed. It was discussed that a possible solution might be for the developers to seek a variance to alleviate the parking problem. MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous matters brought before the Planning Commission at this meeting. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Elbert made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Mattey seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Elbert, yes; Mattey, yes; Novasad, yes ; Piland, yes. All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Acting Chairman Ellard adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m.