Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJanuary 17, 1978 Planning Commission Minutes January 17 , 1978 a7 : 30 P .M. The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman - Don Banks. Roll call found the following Commissioners present : Emery, Halley, Hillyer, Dann, McManama, Messmer, - Waldron and Banks. Absent being Commissioner Loveland. Also present were Councilman Jim Corliss , Attorney Bill Carter, Building Inspector R . J. Ritchey, City Adm. Dave Kucera, Secretary Janice Corbett and several interested citizens were present. -The minutes of December 20, 1977 and January 3, 1978 were presented for approval. Motion was made by Halley, seconded by Messmer to approve both sets of minutes as presented. All in favor, motion carried. Unfinished Business A . Stonscreek Subdivision Final Plat - Unit #1 City Adm. Kucera said the developers are requesting a variance to the required 70 ' lot width for the following lots : Block 1 - Lots 6, 9, 10, 11, 17, 2D, 21, 22 & 23 a Block 3 - Lots 16, 17 , 18 , 19 & 22 Block 4 - Lots 5, 6, 8; 11 , 16 & 17 Block 6 - Lots 22 & 24 City Adm. Kucera stated that in reviewing the plans , the staff noted 7 lots that a house -could' not be built on . Commissioner Emery said he was in favor of granting the variance on all the lots requested by the applicant mainly to keep the 2D' setback continuity throughout the subdivision . In reviewing the plans, Commissioner Mann noted 11 lots that would need a variance in order to build a home on the lot . Discussion was held on the number of lots that - should be granted a variance. Motion was made by McManama, seconded by Halley to grant a variance on the following lots : Block l - Lots 6 & 17 Block 3 .- Lots 16, 17, 19 & 22 Block 4 - Lots 5, 6 8, 11 & 17' Roll call vote : Emery, no ; Halley, yes ; Hillyer, yes ; Mann, yes ; McManama, yes; Messmer, yes; Waldron , yes ; Banks, yes . Majority in favor, motion carried. Chairman Banks asked City Adm. Kucera if all the conditions have been met regarding this subdivision. Adm. Kucera replied that they a have but the developers have a request before the City Council to modify some of the conditions . Motion was made by Emery, seconded by Halley to `approve the final plat subject to :review by the staff. Roll call vote : Emery , yes ; Halley, yes ; Hillyer, yes ; Mann, yes ; McManama, yes ; Messmer,. yes ; Waldron , yes ; Banks , yes. All in favor, motion carried. January 17 , 1978 New Business A . Snow annexation public hearin located at 3817 Grant .Road, 37-2W-9A Tax- Lot 100- and 37-3W-1DBC- Tax Lo , 10500 —. A icants , Dr. Milton R. and Wanda J. Snow City Attorney Bill Carter explained the new- annexation procedure required at the; Planning Commission: level: : Carter stated that it is important for the Planning:�Commission to' keep a record of everything they do and to make their findings complete. -It is important to put into the record:-what: your feelings are. Carter read' whatcthe .Suprems Court and League of . Oregon Cities said about annexations. "Once-.the relevant use goals have been identified into the record, it then becomes important . to. articulate the facts and identify those which .were relied upon in rendering the decision. This is the part of the record, 'made locally, when reviewed by a court or LCDC that must contain substantial evidence supporting the decision .' Finally, the record needs to explain the rationalities by the decision makers in justifying the annexation. -- The rationale -should.'-demonstrate the approval or denial of an annexation proposal- resulting `in a decision which considered and accommodated as much as possible all applicable planning goals" . Carter emphasized to the Planning Commission the importance of'not1coming ,to conclusions that will be entered into the record but ,to carefully-weigh therevidence and clearly state the decision reached. 'Anyone who is substan- tially affected, pro or con , can appeal the decision to LCDC or to circuit court, . In the .;appeal , only the -decision .reached at the public; hearing will be-reviewed. :,Carter.`stated it is his under- standing that .,,af.ter' the public hearing the City Administrator will prepare a„'staff report - which will .be 'presented-to the Council for their public hearing : Chairman - Banks ; opened: the `public hearing and asked if there -were any proponents present: Mr. Richard Stark, .:attorney representing the Snows, was recognized and came forth. Stark stated- he would like to enter into the record a written statement and proposed findings submitted by the applicants. (Refer to attached findings) . : : In reviewing - the case of Peterson vs . City of Klamath Falls , Stark stated ORS 197 .175 was involved. After this case was heard, the legislature changed the statute to read as follows : "Cities and:'counties: shall exercise their planning and zoning responsibilities including the annexing of unincorporated territory in accordance with the state- wide -planning goals" . .Stark stated he feels :compliance will all the planning goals -will have to be �shown to _be .on the safe side and requested that this .be referred 'to the .Central : Point Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for a recommendation to the City Council from the CAB. Stark requested that , City-Adm: Kucera provide him with ' a copy of the staff report� pricr, to future hearings . A map was presented by the applicants showing -the sphere - of influence in ,the -city ' s' comprehensive plan when.' `it was ,adopted in 1975. 1 The Snow property is included in the medium density residential portion of the pl'an . ­-A second map <was presented .:ehowing the general -location of ,the Snow'-property in red and �the existing January 17 , 1978 New Business (cont ' d) a A. Snow public hearing (cont' d) Central Point city limits in yellow. The maps were entered . as part of the record. Stark stated he understands that LCDC has actually approved the textural part of the comprehensive plan . but did not approve the map designating certain areas because the county at ,that time did not have sufficient time to consider its influence on that boundary. Stark said the applicants , in pursuing this annexation, should show public need for this annexation and feels public . need can be derived from the textural part of the city ' s comprehensive plan . The Snow property, is approximately 49 acres and one item of great importance is water and sewer availability to the site for residential development. . Stark stated part of the property can be served by the . City of Central Point ' s sewer system and part will be served by the west main trunk contemplated by BCVSA . City water is available to the site. In reviewing the goals set by LCDC , Stark gave the following reasons why exception should be taken to LCDC Coal #3 ,(agricultural land) : 1) The :land is bordered on three (3) sides by some type of residential development. 2) The soil is sixty percent (60%) kubli soil which is classified as Class IV soil and forty percent (40%) is classified as Class I soil . 3) The Snow' s net income for the 45 acres -that is leased out for the growing of seed :is $2, 417. 58 . A copy of the soil analysis report was entered into the record. (Refer to attached report) . Chairman Banks asked if any opponents were present. Mr. Richard Miller, Manager of BCVSA , was recognized and came forth. He stated he is not present as an opponent or proponent regarding the annexation other than the withdrawal factor .from the Sanitary Authority. Miller read a letter he submitted to the Commission regarding the requested annexation. (Refer to attached letter) . Mr. Manville Heisel ,, attorney representing Higinbotham Farms, Inc. , was recognized and came forth. Heisel said he ;agrees with Attorney Stark that this matter should go before the Central Point CAC, but should .also go before the County .CAC since this is still County property. Heisel submitted ,a drainage facilities' .plan . Drainage from the Snow property goes to the south along a pipe line for some distance then goes into an open ditch and travels to the south. Photographs of flood areas were submitted by Attorney Heisel . Heisel stated that when .farm land is converted to urban use a lot of cement, asphalt and garages are being placed over an area that would normally soak up the rain -water. This is a serious consideration when a parcel of property is being considered for urban use that has drainage .problems like the property .being considered. Heisel stated that the annexation would add an urbanized area to the City of Central Point that could only be reached by county roads and would result in , increased traffic through the non—urban areas. Under economic conditions , Heisel stated that the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District has two underground pipelines across the property and January 17, 1978 New Business (cont' d) ' A . Snow publiczhearing (cont' d) they will -have to be protected by 'e"asem'ents. "The following reasons were given why the Higinbot'ham Farm would not be compatible to ' an urban area : (1) The farm maintains a manure pit from :which -it •Uses ''of sprinkling :system. •: This procedure would be unacceptable adjacent ]to an'urbanized -area. Vandalism would result --from childre' n ' damaging , sprinkler heads and stopping ':the flow of. irrigation, ('2) ',The milk barn is 50 to 75 feet ` from � thei fence line separating EigTiculturil and ' farm land from urbanized ',land; (3) The 'shop, 'is adjacent to the fence line ' separatinIg ' the farmlfrom :the urban"area. - Heisel ' entered into the record Ia soil 'map' of the : property ,involved which includes the ' Snow `'Psoperty. This -area is de§ig'nating`''Class'es P through IV soil ' and ' other ' soils in!. this' area. -The `map was' prepared -by the Jackson County Plan ni ng�Departmsnt - 'The Show 'property ' is predominantly classed as I and III''soil. " Heisel submitted to the Commission a' petition containing'=37 signatures of property- owners -in: the :area ; wh"o'" are objecting to the annexation'. - Mr. Robert `Dun6, ;5475 Severn Oaks Road, Can Point, was recognized and ,came `forth. ' He stated that drainage -problems from the subdivisions are 'of "great concern to,--th-e' farmer':1 ` Since the subdivider does not take 'care- of the 'probl'em;, the farmer has to bear the burden 'resulting zn '-loss or damage 'to- crops " Dunn ' said it was =stated earlier by -the proponent that this area is not good farm land. =-QHe said ithis is not "true -as tne ' area is :good farm land.. - :Mr::-`.Tim -Higinbotham, 2673 'Taylor 'R'oad', Central Point, was -recognized 'and :came ' forth. - He stated :that the Higinbotham Farm has :been an 'existing use ':for- 30 years''-and 'the -proposed development. Will -,have 'a 'substantial of-feet not only on -the annexation 'but- a`ls'o'ion;�thsm-as' a-dairy- farm Chairman- -Banks closed the 'public 'portion of -the hearing :` ' A :question Was raised as- to- whether 'additional' `testimony can be presented at the time' the` public -hearing 'is -continued:.- Attorney Carter 'said that when a specified date has been "set fo'r 'the"contlnuation of the public hearing ,' -it'-should 'be advertised and the -advertisement should- state That' th`e' Commission-, is considering" 'excepti_on to Goal- #3. Motion was made by McManama, seconded by 'Mann' to continue the Snow 'annexation public' hearing tc =the February 21st meeting. All in',favor'," 'motion carried. B. #1068 'Plan ReveW for proposed dupl'ex 'located at 636 Alder St. , 37-2W-11BB , Lot-- 2 'Block 37 Drig'inal Town, Applicants, -fir. & Mrs. Charles Pitts " Plans were presented ' to' the ' Pla"nning-'Commiss"i'on I for review. Building Inspector 'Ri`tchey read the st-aff "report. Ritchey said the Planning Commission` should con-sider 'th-e 'fo'llowing- items : , (1 ) Landscaping ; (2) Architectural review; (3) Covenant on the deed stating the property cannot be split at any time but will have to remain under one ownership; (4) Paving the alley. January 17 , 1978 a New Business (cont ' d) B. #1068 Plan Review - Charles Pitts (cont' d) Discussion was held . No landscaping is necessary due to the layout of the duplex. The following conditions were imposed by the Planning Commission : (1 Pave the alley from S . 7th St. to the and of their property . (2 Put a 2 ' eyebrow around the building . (3 Change the overhang on roof from 1 foot to 2 feet on the ends . �4 Provide a 6' screen fence. 5� Provide a 2 foot sidewalk from the duplex to Alder Street on the east side. (6) -Provide . a covenant stating that the property will not be divided - but will remain under one ownership . Motion was made by McManama, seconded by Waldron to approve the duplex with the conditions of the staff report and the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission . Roll call vote : .Emery, yes ; Halley, yes ; Hillyer, yes ; Mann , abstained; McManama, yes ; Messmer, yes •, 'Waldron; yes ; Banks , '. yes . Majority in favor, motion carried. C . Discussion on zoning to allow tattoo parlors - Motion was made by Mann , seconded by Messmer to postphone discussion of tattoo parlors until the February 7th meeting and request that the applicants be present. Roll call vote : Emery, yes ; Halley, yes ; Hillyer, no ; Mann , yes ; McManama, yes ; Messmer, yes ; Waldron , yes ; Banks , yes . Majority in favor, motion carried. Miscellaneous Matters & Public Appearances A . Motion was made by Mann to close all public hearings in the form of a motion. Motion died for lack of second. B . Motion was made by Halley, seconded by Waldron to move #7 on the agenda outline under #4. All in favor, motion carried. C . Motion was made by Mann, seconded by Messmer to set a study session for January 31st to study Fasano finding procedures . All in favor, motion carried. Motion was made by McManama, seconded by Mann to adjourn. All in favor, motion carried . Meeting adjourned at 10 :45 P.M. ce Corbett, Secretary See Snow Annexation, History/Introduction in files .