Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 18, 1979 Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers September 18, 1979 Meeting was opened at 7:30 P.M. by Vice-Chairman Nordby. Roll call found members DeArmond, Hillyer, McPherson, Misik, Nordby and Thelen present. Absent were Sorensen and Chairman McManama. Others present were Building Official Ritchey and Secretary Stamper. Mayor Del Curry was seated in the audience as well as many interested citizens. Motion was made by Hillyer and second given by Misik to approve the Minutes of the September 4th Planning Commission meeting. All in favor, the motion carried. Correspondence and Public Appearances No correspondence received. Mayor Curry introduced Orville Hamer and administered the Oath of Office to him as the appointed new member to fill Position #9 of the Planning Commission with term expiring 1/01/82. Mr. Hamer was resented at the Council table after being welcomed by the Commission. City Administrator arrived at 7:35 P.M. Old Business 1068 Plan Review for The Southland Corporation's proposed 7-;l Store to be located at 1030 East Pine Street, J.C. map page 37 21V 2CD, Tax Lot 2800. Mr. Way Hamlin of the Corporation's Construction Dept. in Tukwila, Washington was present as. the applicant. (This matter had been continued from the August 21st. meeting which recommended certain changes be incorporated and new plans sub- mitted.) Revised drawings were displayed. Staff report by Bldg. Official - Ritchey recommending approval of the 1068 as item 1 - Parking space arrangement changed to meet setback requirements for off-street parking, 2. - Drive approaches from East Pine and also Bigham widened to provide easier vehicle egress and ingress, 3. - Grade on driveway on Pine Street reduced to 6% incline for a distance of 64 feet as recommended by Plann. Commission at the 8/21/79 meeting. Motion by Misik with second by Hamer toaapprove the 1068 Plan Review for the 7-11 Store construction at 1030 East Pine Street per staff report and recommend- ations. Roll call vote. All in favor, the motion carried. Snow Annexation Adoption Findings of Fact, the next agenda item, was moved to the end of the meeting agenda. New Business 1068 Plan Review for 281 North 10th Street for an additional apartment at J.C. map 37 2W 2CB, Tax Lot 7202 in the LaCrests Subdivision was the next order of business. Dave Fenton of P.O. Box 1002, Medford, representing owner Claudette Yost and Mrs. Yost were both present. Staff report by Bldg. Official Ritchey.. gave history that the 4-Plex had been constructed with plumbing roughed-in in the basement for future development at the time of initial construction.), no structural changes needed; water and sewer service available but will require a connect charge; parking spaces available; Plumbing Fixture permit plus bldg. permit and fees will be required as well as must meet UBC, UPC, UMC and Fire New Business:--(continued page 2 and Life Safety regulations. All setbacks and lot coverages comply with City Code Mr. Ritchey reported. Mr. Fenton answered questions from Commissioners in the general discussion. Motion by Misik to approve the 1068 Plan Review for the additional apartment to be located in the basement of 4-plex at 281 No. 10th Street. Motion seconded by Hillyer. Roll call. All members present and voting in the affirmative, the motion carried. A fence variance request for 4018 Inglewood Court was tabled to a later time. Applicant not present because of family emergency reported Vice- Chairman Nordby. Returning to old Business on the Agenda: Snow Annexation Adoption Findings of Fact. Introduction made by City Administrator Kucera who presented a Draft Reso- lution to be used for Planning Commission deliberations and consideration of proposed definition, requirements, and adoption- of evidence and findings regarding the Snow Annexation Proposal. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed draft item by item. Discussed pertinent evidence previously submitted for the- record, mad a the following request for draft admendments: Goal #1 - Citizen Involvement. Commissioners felt that the proposed 6-acre annexation and the 50-acre annexation are uncommon enough that the citizen involvement committee should have been given a second opportunity to review the 5-acre annexation on its own merits. Motion by Hillyer, second by Misik that the Planning Commission finds that Goal #1 was not complied with because a change from 50-acres to 5-acres is "significant" and the Citizens Advisory Committee did not review-the 5 acre proposed' annexation. Roll call vote. , All in favor but Member DeArmond who voted "No.' Motion carried.. Goal #2 -.Land Use Planning. Recommendation to add phrase in paragraph "a" to read" ..."by Resolution #173, 210, and 222, and which calls for greeeeeee- processing • land". . Motion by-Hamer, second by Hillyer that the Planning Commission finds, based on evidence presented in paragraphs "a", "b", and "c" that proper land use planning processes have been followed in this- annexation process. Roll call vote. All- in favor. Carried. Goal #3 - Agricultural Lands Motion by Misik, second by Hillyer that based on tie draft resolution evidence the Commission finds that the evidence has not met-the burden of proof required to satisfy the requirements of the Administrative Rule pertaining to annexa- tions. All in favor by roll call vote. Exceptions to Goal #3 (defined in L.C.D.C. Goal 2 which addresses 4 items... 1) Housing rather than agricultural use, (2) other alternative area locations, 3) long term consequences to locality, region or State, (4) compatibility with other adjacent uses. Discussion on the 4 issues... burden of proof not carried in items 1, 2 and 4, and, item 4 is incomplete in that the area to the south not addressed by the evidence. Motion-by Misik, second by Hillyer that the Planning Commission finds that the evidence as shown in paragraphs "f", "g" "h" "i" and "l" of the draft does not support the taking of an exee tion to Goal 3. Roll call vote, all in favor and carried. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers September 18, 1979 - page 3 Old Business (continued) Snow Annexation Adoption Findings of Fact (continued): Goal #4 - Forest Lands. Motion by Hillyer that no evidence was submitted for the Planning Commission to arrive at a conclusion regarding Goal 4 relating to forest lands. Motion seconded by Misik. Discussion. Roll call vote. All in favor but Member DeArmond who abstained. The motion carried. Goal #5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic Areas, and Natural Resources. Hillyer made motion that based on the inadequate evidence as presented that Goal #5 was not met as open space is provided in City Ordinance regulations covered by Chapter 16.20 of the Municipal Code for public parks upon urbanization of resi- dential development. Motion seconded by McPherson. All members voting in the affirmative, the motion carried. Goal #6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality. Discussion of paragraphs "a", "b" and "c". Thelen made motion that Planning Commission finds there is insufficient evidence to determine the impact upon air, water and land resources. Motion seconded by McPherson. Roll call. Carried with all in f avo r. Goal #7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disaster and Hazards. Discussion on propon- ent's findings in Exhibit I page 7 regarding subsurface drainage. Motion by Misik, second by Hillyer that the Planning Commission finds evidence as shown in paragraphs "a" and "b" of the resolution draft that does not conclusively show 0 that life and property would be protected. By roll call vote. All in favor and carried. Goal #8 - Recreation Needs. Motion by Hillyer, second by McPherson that the Planning Commission finds that due to paragraph "a" above that recreational needs in coordination with private enterprises, and'in appropriate proportions to the proposed development and in quantity and quality and locations as is consistent with available resources will be provided by City Ordinance Chapter 16.20 and that Goal #8 is satisfied. Roll call vote. Carried with all in favor. Goal #9 - Economy of State. Question by DeArmond in paragraph 9 of the propon- ent's Exhibit I paragraph "b" (agricultural income from property 1967-1970) indicated whether this is 'total income derived from all sources on this acreage? Discussion to add a paragraph "c"..."The evidence does not indicate whether this is total income derived from all sources on this acreage". More discussion. The Planning Commission finds that evidence shows that short term benefits or Timber Products, Construction, Goods and Services economy of e area will improve due to annexation of e property but does not show if e net resu is a gain or a loss to the economy as the agricultural income portion was not adequately answered in a motion made by DeArmond, seconded by Hamer. Roll call found all in favor. Carried unanimously. Goal #10 - Housing. Discussion on paragraphs "a", "b", "c" and "d" of the draft. Motion by Thelen that the Planning Commission finds the evidences does not support a need for additional housing. Discussion. Motion amended to read: "Evidence presented in paragraphs "b", "c", and "d" does not prove need for additional housing through annexation." Motion amendmend seconded by Hamer. Roll call found all in favor and so carried. Planning Commission Meeting September 18, 1979 - page 4 Old Business (continued): Snow Annexation Adoption Findings of Fact (continued): Goal #11 - Public Facilities and Services. Discussion on paragraph "e" concerning school projection and current student load. Motion by DeArmond, second by Misik that the Planning Commission finds that the evidence in paragraphs "a", "b", "c", "d", and "e" of the draft shows that adequate public facilities are not available for additional homes in this area and evidence does not provide an adequate plan for completion of all the public facilities necessary to allow annexation of this property. Roll Call. All members presented voted in favor. Carried. Goal #12 - Transportation. Motion by Misilf, second by Hamer that based on- size of- development-of. 20,_houses, thePlanning Commission finds that traffic impact resulting from the proposal would be minimal. Roll call vote. Carried with all in favor. Goal #13 - Energy Conservation - Motion by Misik, second by DeArmond that Planning Commission finds energy conservation will be provided as the proposed annexation property is contiguous to the City limits and provides direct Transportation routes to local jobs and shopping facilities, which also re- lates to conservation of energy. By roll call vote. All members voting in the affirmative, the motion carried. Goal #14 - Ifrbanization. City Administrator Kucera was directed by the Plan- ning Commission to revise this section of Goal #14, and, consequently a motion 1 by Hillyer with second by Misik that L.C.D.C. Administrative Rule and L.C.D.C. Goal #14 has not been satisfied to allow annexation, and to have City Admin- istrator Kucera rewrite this section; also, to develop a summary of Findings for all Goals 1 through 14 and continued the Snow Annexation Adoption of Findings of Fact to the October 2, 1979 Planning Commission meeting. Roll call vote. All in favor and carried. Vice Chairman Nordby, recognizing Mr. Michael O'Connell of 4018 Inglewood Court in the and ence, returned to the agenda item under "New Business" (see page 2 second paragraph) Mr. OConnell came forth and stated his request for a fence variance for property in Scenic Village Subdivision on Lot 39 of Block 3 J.C. map 37 2W 3AB, Tax Lot 1400 (4018 Inglewood Court) Chairman Pro tem Nordby stated for the record he is a neighbor and as such, will refrain from voting on the matter but will chair this portion of the meeting and partake in the general discussion. Letter was read into record as Proponent's Exhibit I. Property on a cul-de-sac but extends through to Scenic. Avenue; has a 32' fence across lot at rear now but wanted to extend the height to 6' feet to provide privacy to be able to use back yard and prevent vehicular and foot traffic from looking into the house. Staff report presented by Building Offi- cial Ritchey which was also read into the record and a memo prepared by Police Chief Whalen finding no hazards evidenced; recommending that the variance be granted and petitioned the Planning Commission to adopt such findings favorably for the applicant. City Administrator remarked on the new format presented in the Staff Report and Findings that can be approved by the Commission. ' Discussion. Questions by Members to Mr. 01"Connell. Motion by Iiamer to approve the variance request to allow a 6' fence across rear propertyline tying in with existing side yard fencing. Motion seconded by McPherson. Motion seconded by Misik. Roll call vote. All in favor but Nordby who abstained. Motion carried. Planning Commission Meeting September 18, 1979 — page 5 Miscellaneous Natters A report was given by Commissionmember DeArmond of the seminar recently held in Roseburg, Oregon (Sept. 14th with Member Nordby and Bldg. Official Ritchey and passed out various informational handouts obtained. Comments were made concerning the way the Snow Annexation had been presented to the City and the requirement the State L.C.D.C. Goals and Guidelines had established' to resolve "Findings" in the manner done earlier in the meeting; not to be construed as an attach on the applicants. General discussion evolved of State's requirements, proponents' burden, and Planning Commission obligations. No further business, motion by DeArmond, seconded by Misik to adjourn. All voting in the affirmative, the meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M.