Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNovember 1, 1983 Planning Commission Meeting November 1 , 1983 City Council Chambers 7:00 p.m. e MEETING CALLED TO ORDER Chairman Orrin Frederick called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were Chairman Orrin Frederick and Commissioners Ginger Bitterling, Virgil Elbert, Garth Ellard, Jerry Mattey, and Charles Piland. Commissioner Louise Novasad was absent due to personal illness . Also present were Mayor Don Jones, Councilmember Donna Higginbotham, City Administrator David Kucera, Fire Chief/Building Official Don Paul , and Secretary Maureen Tanhoff. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner Bitterling made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 6, 1983 Planning Commission meeting as presented. Commissioner Piland seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bitterling, yes ; Elbert, yes ; Ellard, yes ; Mattey, yes ; Piland, yes . All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the mo- tion, and the motion carried. CORRESPONDENCE No correspondence was brought before the Planning Commission at this meeting. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances made at this Planning Commission meeting. BUSINESS Public meeting for the Planning Commission to review and make a determination on application for fence variance submitted by Mr. and Mrs . William Kime of 1065 North Fifth Street. Building Official Paul gave a background of the fence situation that has led to this variance request. He read the following exhibits into the record : Exhibit A - Variance application; Exhibit B - Notice of Public Meeting; Exhi- bit C - Certificate of Posting of Notice of Public Meeting; Exhibit D - Noti- fication of violation letter dated July 19, 1983; Exhibit E - Staff report dated July 29, 1983 for Planning Commission meeting held August 2, 1983; Exhibit F - Planning Commission minutes for August 2, 1983 meeting; and Exhibit G - City Council study session minutes of August 11 , 1983. Mr. Paul also pre- sented photographs taken from the backyards of both parties for the Commission to review again. Chairman Frederick opened the public meeting. Planning Commission Meeting November 1 , 1983 City Council Chambers Page 2 e Chairman Frederick explained the necessity for Mr. Kime to address the find- ings of fact listed in Section 15.20.070 of the Municipal Code in order for the Commission to consider granting the variance request. Mr. Willima Kime, 1065 North Fifth Street, came forward. He addressed the findings of fact as follows: 1 . The variance would provide advantages to the neighborhood in that it will maintain the privacy of his backyard and that of his next door neighbors , the Aguirres; 2. The variance would provide beautification to the neighborhood because the weather has caused the fence addition to more closely resemble the existing fence. He also added that the fence addition is not visible from the front of the house; 3. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood by preventing the Aguirre children from climbing the fence and possibly falling off; 4. The variance will provide protection in the same manner as it provides safety; 5. The variance will not have any adverse ef- fects upon the neighborhood according to neighbors behind the Aguirres and those on the other side of his house. Mr...Kime presented a letter from Dwayne M. and Patt Badger of 1075 North Fifth Street, Central Point, dated October 30, 1983 expressing their views in favor of the fence variance. Mr. Dan Hugo, 934 North Third Street, Central Point, came forward. He stated that it is his opinion that Mr. Aguirre is in the wrong with the height of his deck and not Mr. Kime for trying to protect the privacy of his backyard. Mr. Hugo stated he has no objections to the fence addition constructed by Mr. Kime. He asked the Commission if the City is going to do something about the protec- tion of privacy in these types of situations . Chairman Frederick advised him that City staff has compiled information for the Commission to review later on in the meeting on how other cities ' ordinances read in regard to fence and deck heights . Mayor Don Jones came forward to address the Commission. He stated he had gone to the homes of the Kimes and the Aguirres as a "peacemaker" in an attempt to resolve the situation. He stated that Mr. Aguirre told him that he wished he could withdraw his complaint because he now feels that he overreacted to the fence addition . Mr. Aguirre explained to Mayor Jones that his reaction was out of anger because he had been away when Mr. Kime built the fence addition without Mr. Aguirre's knowledge or consent. Mr. Aguirre now states that he is not offended by the fence addition and can see how the Kimes ' privacy had been invaded. Mayor Jones added that he hopes the City will not be setting a precedent for nine-foot fences , but since this only involves two neighbors , he is in favor of granting the variance. No one came forward to speak in opposition to the fence variance request, and Chairman Frederick closed the public meeting. Commissioner Ellard stated that perhaps the ordinance will be amended at some point in the future, but as it is written now, the variance should not be granted because the six findings of fact have not been sufficiently met by Mr. Kime. Commissioners Mattey and Elbert agreed. Planning Commission Meeting November 1 , 1983 City Council Chambers Page 3 Commissioner Piland asked if Section 15.20.070 might overrule the six find- ings of fact based on the imposition of an unnecessary hardship to Mr. Kime resulting from the strict application of the six items . If not, he also feels that the variance should not be granted because it would set a prece- dent that would enable all citizens to erect fences over six feet in height. Chairman Frederick explained that by law, the City must require that the six findings of fact be addressed, whether or not they apply to the variance request. Chairman Frederick stated that he felt there was an advantage to the neigh- borhood provided by the fence addition because it enables both neighbors to enjoy more privacy in the backyards . Commissioner Elbert stated that although Mr. Kime has not actually violated the six findings of fact, he has not provided any advantages to the neighbor- hood in his opinion . Commissioner Piland added that no disadvantages were provided either. Commissioner Bitterling stated that many people in the community are waiting 0 to hear the Commission's decision on this variance request, and the Commission should be careful as to the precedent that is set by their decision. The Commissioners discussed the six findings of fact individually and agreed as follows : 1 . Advantages - does not apply; 2. Beautification -- does not apply; 3. Safety - not provided; 4. Protection - not provided; 5. Adverse effects - does not apply. The surrounding neighbors are in favor now, but the future owners of the homes must be considered; 6. Utilization of the property within the intent of the zone district - no bearing. Chairman Frederick stated that although the variance would not provide any of the items , it would not prohibit any of them either. Commission Ellard stated that the Planning Commission should base their decision on the findings of fact, not on specu- lation of setting a precedent. Don Paul reiterated that the applicant must establish the findings of fact. Commissioner Ellard made a motion to deny the application for a fence variance at 1065 North Fifth Street on the basis that the findings of fact have not been sufficiently established . Commissioner Bitterling seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bitterling, yes ; Elbert, yes ; Ellard, yes ; Mattey, yes ; Piland, yes . All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Discussion for Plannincl Commission to determine if mobile food vendors should be allowed in more permanent situations . Building Official Paul read staff report dated October 27 , 1983. He explained that a mobile food vendor has operated in the Big Y parking lot in Medford and also in the U-Mark-It parking lot in Central Point, but he can find no record Planning Commission Meeting November 1 , 1983 City Council Chambers Page 4 of it being addressed in the Municipal Code as such. Staff is .asking the Planning Commission to consider if these types of businesses should be al- lowed in Central Point. If so, as conditional or permitted uses and in which zones . If the Commission decides they should be allowed as permitted uses, only a business license would be required. If they are to be allowed as conditional uses , the businesses would be required to go through the con- ditional use process . Don Paul explained that Mr. Ron Richey is requesting to place his mobile food operation called Speedez Tamale Wagon in the parking lot of Central Point Cleaners on Pine Street which is located in a C-3 zone. The current fee for mobile food vendors to operate in the City on a temporary basis is $5 .00 per day for no longer that five consecutive days according to Section 5 .04.090 D. This section also states that no more than three licenses may be issued in a calendar year. These licenses are also intended for the sponsoring organizations . Mr. Richey is proposing to operate there for an extended period of time so this ordinance would not apply in this case. Mr. Ron Richey, 6626 Table Rock Road, Central Point, came forward. He stated he would only be interested in downtown locations for his operation. He would like to use the space next to Central Point Cleaners because it is a location where his business would not conflict with other businesses and would provide ample space for his operation and parking. It is his desire to appeal to foot traffic along Pine Street. He has obtained written permission from the owner of Central Point Cleaners, Keith Clisby, and has paid him in advance for the use of the property. and released him from any responsibility. Mr. Richey informed the Commission that he has also operated his business two days a week at the Expo and in Phoenix. Chairman Frederick asked Mr. Richey if he could see his type of business operating in the lot across from the 7-11 store on Pine Street or in the U-Mark-It parking lot. Mr. Richey stated that he could across from 7-11 , but not in the U-Mark-It parking lot because .it has not been a good place in the past for these types of businesses . Commissioner Ellard asked Mr. Richey if there were any areas that would be impractical for his business . Mr. Richey stated that residential zones and around schools would not be good areas . Commissioner Ellard stated that it is his opinion that these types of businesses are not obtrusive and can look nice. However, he feels they should be consi- dered as conditional uses so that the Planning Commission can review each situ- ation and provide opportunity for other citizens to express their views . He asked Mr. Richey about the signing for his business . Mr. Richey stated that the signing is on the wagon itself and he sometimes uses sandwich board signs . Chairman Frederick stated that he feels mobile food vendors would be an asset to the community and in this case, make good use of some vacant space on Pine Street. Planning Commission Meeting November 1 , 1983 City Council Chambers Page 5 Commissioner Ellard stated that if the Planning Commission decides to consi- der mobile food vendors as conditional uses , the one-year time limit should be extended. Mr. Paul stated that it could be stipulated that the businesses be reviewed after a certain period of time. Commissioner Piland made a motion to pass a resolution recommending the autho- rization of mobile food vendors as conditional uses in zones C-3, C-4 and C-5. Commissioner Elbert seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bitterling, yes ; Elbert, yes ; Ellard, yes ; Mattey, yes; Piland, yes . All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. MISCELLANEOUS Deck and Fence Height Information Don Paul stated that he had solicited information from 24 cities of Oregon for information regarding fence and deck height limitations and received 11 res- ponses . He presented the results in staff report dated October 27, 1983. Staff would like the Planning Commission to decide if a new ordinance should be drafted on fence and deck height requirements . Commissioner Ellard suggested that possibly setbacks should be increased so that decks are not so close to fences . He also stated that a deck height of 3-112 feet is adequate. The Commission discussed this and agreed. Don Paul stated that staff would draft an ordinance for the Planning Commission to consider outlining a 3-1/2-foot deck height limitation and a ten-foot set- back requirement for decks . A distinction will also be made as to pool decks and house decks . ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Mattey made a motion to adjourn the meeting . Commissioner Ellard seconded the motion. Roll call vote: Bitterling, yes ; Elbert, yes; Ellard, yes ; Mattey, yes ; Piland, yes . All of the Commissioners voted in favor of the motion, and the motion carried. Chairman Frederick adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.