Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 20, 1978 Planning Commission Meeting Central Point Council Chambers June 20, 1978 Meeting was opened by Chairman Don Banks at 7:35 P.M. Roll call found the following Commissionmembers present: Emery, Halley, Loveland, McManama, Nordby and Banks. Also present were Secretary Stamper and City Engr. Hendershot. Absent members were Mann, Waldron and Messmer. City Admin. Kucera also was not present. Approval of Minutes of the June 6, 1978 meeting was made in motion by Emery, seconded by Loveland and passed with all, in favor. Correspondence - none Public Appearance was made by James T. White, 118 No. Fifth Street inquiring of consideration in the R-3 zone to allow a triplex at his property; will need a variance of the 10 setback for parking allowance instead of a 20' setback per ordinance. Mr. White was advised to appear at City Hall and apply for a vari ance, then the matter could be handled in the proper manner according to City regulations. Appearance by Mr. George Johns of 5236 Dobrot Way of property containing 4.5 acres of land indicating a desire to develop 3 acres and requesting advice from the Commission. Mr. Johns wants to eliminate from the total area his house, pool and outbuildings encompassing approx. 1.5 acres. Tentative plat drawing was available and questions to the Commissioners...1. Could he divide it into ' a subdivision plan? 2. Minor partition into 3 pieces with 3 houses? Discus- sion held. Would have to bring Dobrot Way up to standards of street require- ments; if a subdivision would have to have all improvements, etc. If the decision to go a minor partition route, he only has to make application and the Planning Commission could look at the request in more depth at a later date. Old Business A. Public Hearing held on request to Re-zone from R-3 to M-2, Robert Ashen berner, applicant, at 224 So. Amy Street, Tax Lots 5600, 5700 and 5800. Jack- son County map 37 2W 10AA, Cooksey Addition. Hearing was opened by Chairman Don Banks and Mr. Ashenberner explained his request. Opponents were given the opportunity to speak. Mrs. Eunice Richards stated she owns a hourse on So. Amy Street and was representing the neighborhood; complained of violations such as stacked lumber in the R-3 zone, truck traffic at night and trash in neikhborhood, and presented a signed petition of those propertyowners in the neighborhood opposing the re-zone request. Next to speak was Mr. Al Smith of 168 Amy Street. Mr. Smith stated he is the legal owner of T.L. 5700 and he objects. ..as Mr. Ashenberner does not own the property! ; Mr. Smith sold it on contract to Mr. Paul Beaulieu. Mr. Wade Tucker, 140 So. Amy Street stated he sold property known as Tax Lot 5600 to former Police Officer Bob Haley and holds the 1st mortgage with 11 more years to go! He continued, that the "bank" told him that Mr. Haley has sold Tax Lot 5600 to Mr. Ashenberner and the property was not in escrow; has had problems between Quality Insulation and the Haley house with truck traffic. Mr. Tucker stated that Mr. Ashenberner has now oiled part of the dirt street but not ' his portion and the traffic problems are cause by Quality Insulation deliveries for over 2 years! Mrs. Richards objected to open burning that had happened on Ashenberner property without benefit of a fire permit! Mrs. Alida Korbol of 160 Haskell St. complained of Ashenberner trucks late at night and the unsight- ly stacking of lumber that she has to look at. Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1978 - Council Chambers Old Business - Ashenberner public hearing (continued) Proponent Ashenberner rebutted that Mr. Tucker was aware of the oiling process on only that portion Ashenberner owned and Mr. Tucker did not approach him for his share of the cost if he wanted his portion oiled? Applicant also produced 2 fire permits which allowed the burning and he had complied with all regulations. Con- tracts on purchase of lits he has would not allow removal of any of the existing buildings until the land is paid for. Mr. Ashenberner produced pictures showing how he maintains his Moulding Mill yard and plant; has 99% of his property in blacktop. Had stacked lumber on one lot; given 30 days to remive it and did so within 21 days and is not in the process of fencing the lot as well as oiling the ground. Noel Moore from the audience spoke for the applicant and state he has known Mr. Ashenbern for many years and found him to be honest and clean; has done an enor- mous amount of business with him and was present tonight on other Planning Com- mission business..but would like to give Mr. Ashenberner the highest personal recommendation. A Mr. Jim Jones inquired of the applicant as to how long would lumber be stored on the lot; and he desires the lot to be left as is. Public portion of the Hearing was closed. Discussion on who holds legal ownership on Tax Lot 5700; applicant to produce copies of titles to property in question and come back before the Commission. Motion by Halley to continue the Public Hearing findings to July 5, 1978 at which time the applicant is to produce legal documents a of ownership of the properties involved in this bearing. Motion was seconded by Nordby and by roll call vote, the decision of the Public Hearing was continued to July 5, 1978. Public Hearing on Home Occupation Conditional Use Permit for 209 Victoria Way, Howard Mathewson, applicant; to fabricate and assembly of aids for the handicapped. Mr. Mathewson showed and explained the various aids he had produced in his garage. Planning Commission Chairman Banks asked if any opponents wished to speak. No one came forth. Chairman Banks asked if any proponents wished to speak. No one came forth. Public Hearing portion closed. Discussion of Commissionmembers. Motion by Halley to approve the Conditional Use request, seconded by Emery. By roll call vote; allsn favor the motion carried unanimously. Conditional Use at 209 Victoria Way is approved. Next item of business was continuation of public hearing on Home Occupation request at 112 Saxbury Drive in West Pine Villa Subdivision, J.C. map 37 2W 1OBC (Tax Lot 8000) lot 1 of Block 6; to allow day care services by applicant Adonda T. Meadows. Public Hearing was re-opened by Vice Chairman Halley, continuing from the June 6th meeting, and proponents were invited to speak. Applicant Mrs. Meadows stated-4she had secured the petitions as requested and objected to the wording of the public hearing notice as a "Day care Center".' Mrs. Esther Cronin representing J.C. Day Care Serviceg endorsed the applicant as well as Bea Warren, a "Certifier" of Daya Care Services. Mrs. Warren of 492 Strait Way stated she lives approx. 400 feet from applicant and from her knowledge Mrs. 0 Meadows is very capable and qualified. Mr. Paul Golding, 205 Saxbury Drive stated they never had a.problem with children. Next, the opponents were invited to speak. Mrs. Fern Lottes, 204 Saxbury Dr., stated she lives 3 houses away and opposed to having Convenants changed; fearing Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1978-- Council Chambers Old Business - continued other businesses will come into the Subdivision; produced a petition in opposi- tion to changing the Covenants and having it remain strictly :;residential. Commissionmember Emery informed those present that the Planning Commission is not endorsing changing the Covenants and have no jurisdiction over the matter; it would be up to the residents to initiate a change of the Covenants of a subdivision. Next in opposition was Newt Mead, Developer of West Pine Villa who spoke of the restricted Covenants drawn up by an attorney and FRA for control of the lots to be used for residential purposes onlyi because of FHA lending and for pro- tection of the owners who read the Covenets into the record calling out 25-years` duration.. .After a term of a 25-year span, the convenants could then be changed. Mr. Don Badness, 870 Concord Way in Medford and engaged in real estate spoke and said that covenants can be and have been broken. Mrs. Lan-Nada Giorgetti stated they (the residents) only have the Covenants to go by. The Pablic Hearing portion of the Hearing was closed. Signatures on the petit- ions submitted by Mrs. Adonda Meadows showed 108 propertyowners for allowance of the request of the 209 legal propertyowners with a withdrawal of 2 signatures; totals 106 or a majority in favor of the Conditional Use Home Occupation request of Mrs. Meadows. Discussion. Findings were read into the record; A. Adequacy of site for child care is governed by State regulations for up to 12 children at that address. B. Traffic - Does not create traffic problems in the neighbor- hood. C. Adverse effect on neighborhood? No adverse effect except concerning the Covenants. Other - If nuisance factor occurs - can be brought back to the Planning Commission, or a citation into the Municipal Court. Non-conforming use - Cannot hire any outside help nor install a sign larger than 1 square foot and must maintain the residential nature of the neighborhood. Applicant must secure the annual license issued by the State with approval by the Health Dept. Motion to approve the Conditional Use Home Occupation request of Mrs. Adonda Meadows for 112 Saxbury Drive for.child care services up to 10 children made by Commissioner Nordby, seconded by McManama. All in favor by roll call vote with exceptions by Banks and Waldron who abstained from the voting. New Business Preliminary Plat Review for-John Sargent, applicant at 1847 Scenic Avenue (form- erly 900 Scenic Ave.) J.C. map 37 2W 3AB represented by Cody Middendorf who showed a plat drawing of 5 lots. Discussion. Recommendation by the Commission that the plat could be redrawn to-contain 6 lots. Mr. Middendorf thanked the Commission and will come back again with anew drawing. Preliminary Plat Review for Ed Nash and Rodman Scott, applicants for proposed construction of apartments at 815 Hopkins Road., J.C. map 37 2W 11A, Tax Lot 1200. Mr. Scott presented drawing for 64 apartments; 59 2-bedroom units and 5 single units. The property is zoned R-3. His design was short on parking space as he figured the spacing using compact-type cars, but stated he would redraw to comply if the Planning Commission recommended it. Mr. Robt. Blanton, Engr. will check drainage problems of the area and other items as necessary;; drainage at-the rear of the Coy property. Planning Commission recommended parking to be Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1978 - Council Chambers a New Business (continued) planned with 2 normal-sized spaces per unit of 10 x 20 feet. Discussion. Staff report recommended State Fire Marshall's approval, bring Hopkins Road up to County and City standards, requires a School District 6 impact review, traffic flow re- view, etc. Mr. Scott will approach the Bldg. Department for further details. 1068 Review for Triplex Construction at 834 Cherry Street, Kenneth Edwards, owner with Noel Moore representing applicant. Property located at J.C. map 37 2W 2CB; Lot 2 of Block 3 of Patti:son Addition. Staff report presented by Bldg. Inspector Ritchey. Discussion. To establish an L.I.D. for paving improvements to Cherry Street recommended by Member Emery. Mr. Moore stated his client would be willing to pave his portion of the street at the time the street was paved; but questioned the staff recommendation of alley paving. Mr. Moore was informed the paving of the alley was a requirement. Motion by Emery to pass the 1068 Review and that when the L.I.D. is established, the propertyowners of record will have to comply to:the L.I.D. requirements, comply to all the requirements of the Staff report and must furnish landscape plans at a later date. Motion was seconded by Nordby. By roll call vote, the motion passed with all in favor. Next order of business was a 1068 Review for 4-Plex construction at 283 West Pine Street, applicants Jones & Peterson for part of Tax Lot 100 of Cooksey Addition, J. C. map page 37 2W 10AC located at intersection with Glenn Way. This request had been submitted to the Planning Commission in prior business and Staff Report con- cerning 4th paragraph item "D". Right of Way on Pine Street. Mr. Jones was present. Request to move construction back to rear portion of lot to allow for Pine Street Improvements which is under the minimum setback=from the propertyline as required per ordinance, and that the widening of Pine Street had been taken in- to consideration at his prior appearance before the Commission. The Creek flow was next topic for discussion. Along Daisy Creek the propertyline at one end is 4' from the high water mark, and one side is 4' from the berm of the Creek. Recommen- dations by City Engr. Hendershot to improve the creekway and see culvert installed to alleviate flow on lots to the south that may be developed later. Planning Commission recommended to Engr. Hendershot to provide an overall diagram of the creek way at a future date. Recommendations of the Planning Commission is to add an "eyebrow" on rear of buildings using 2 x 12 inch boards, tie into Pine Street paving, and Developer to give extra land on Pine Street for future widening of Pine Street. Motion by Member Waldron to approve the 1068 subject to staff report and adding "ribbon" around buildings, pave out to existing pavement on Pine St., subject to Fire Marshall's report if required; motion seconded by Nordby. Roll call vote. All in favor the motion carried. Miscellaneous Matters Zoning of Kilby property on Hopkins Road near Freeman was discussed from a request received. Would the Commission entertain a rezoning for a C-4 in that area instead of the Conditional Use R-3 for the Mobile Home Park? Comprehensive Plan shows the area to be zoned for High Density Residential. Discussion. Should revert back to an R-1-8 zone and then the next representative of the landowner could re-request a zone change with public hearings, etc. when the present conditional use runs out or the request of the conditional use is withdrawn by the owner, motion made by McManama 0 and seconded by Loveland that the land should revert back to an R-1-8 zoning from the applicant's R-3 property; if conditional use is withdrawn by the owner or if the owner's conditional use is terminated by calendar date. Also discussin of feasi- bility of a C-4 zone for a shopping center usage. By roll call vote, all members were in the affirmative for potentially zoned C-4 for a shopping center. Planning Commission Meeting June 20, 1978 - Council Chambers Miscellanous Matters (continued) ' Patricia Himmelman of Bruce Bauer Realty., 612 East Pine Street came forth from the audience requesting a sidewalk variance on the So. Sixth Street side at 612 E. Pine Street to save 5 old trees along the way that would have to be re- moved in order to install the required sidewalk (no sidewalk at the present time). Prior Planning Commission business had required sidewalk on the So. Sixth Street side. Discussion. Planning Commission's recommendation that Bldg. Insp. Ritchey inspect the problem and report back to the Commission. City Engr. Hendershot discussed a small bridge on Snowy Butte Lane; Daisy Creek floods and comes northward toward Pine Street into a 4 x 8 culvert,.-.with debris. The bridge is old and, in his opinion, could be a traffic hazard and is unsafe! Discussion. Recommendation of the Planning Commission that a report be prepared and if necessary, the bridge be condemned for the safety and welfare of the citizens. Engr. Hendershot also discussed inaccessibility to get to the rear section of properties at 285 West Pine Street (prior business) making a problem in elevation. Member Halley asked for a vote of confidence from the Planning Commission to consider a zoning to allow a shopping center concept at the Gorden property off of Hopkins Road near Freeman, stating he had been asked to pass the query along to this body. (Kilby is present owner). Discussion held. Motion by Halley to approve the consideration concept of a shopping center at that location, and- for the record; a roll call vote. Member Emery seconded the motion. By roll call; Unanimous in the affirmative. Member Loveland inquired about a trailer house on Bigham Street between Oak and Pine with people apparently living in it. Loveland stated the trailer had been in that location for overAne year and was informed that water and sewer drains onto the ground. Member Loveland stated he would inform the Secretary of the exact location in order that action could be taken if in violation of' tee City's ordinances. Also, that Pappy's Pizze construction at 825 East Pine. Street has allowed weeds to grown on the Pine Street side and are in need of cutting. (Secretary will pass this info.' to the Fire Department.) No further business to come before this Commission, motion made by Member Emery, seconded by Member McManama to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M. Planning Commission Secretary 01111, June 22, 1978 To: Mayor and Members of the Central Point Council From: Chairman Don Banks, Planning Commission Subject: Planning Commissnn Meeting held June 20, 1978 Report on following Agenda items: Old Business A. Public hearing held on Request to Re-zone from R-3 to M-2, Robert Ashenberner, applicant; 224 So. Amy Street - Tax Lots 5600, 5700 & 5800. Question on who is the legal owners of what properties. Applicant requested to produce legal documents to lift any cloud of ownership and matter was continued to July 5, 1978. B. Request for a Home Occupation Contional Use allowed at 209 Victoria Victoria Way, Howard Mathewson, applicant. To make rehabilitation aids for the infirmed, heart, or stroke victims. Home occupation use granted. C. Home Occupation at 112 Saxbury Drive in West Pine Villa Subd. applicant Adonda Meadows. Mrs. Meadows produced more than 51% of propertyowner signatures in signed petitions to override the covenants. Home occupation use granted with a limit of 10 children. New Business A. Preliminary Plat review for John Sargent property at 900 Scenic Ave. with Cody Middendorf representing applicant. Plans produced showed division of possible subdivision. Representative will return with a revised drawing from 5 lots to possibly 6. No action taken. B. Preliminary Plat review - Rodman Scott representing the partnership for proposed const. of 60-64 apartments at 715 Hopkins Road. Tentative approval given based on Staff report; must have 2 parking spaces per dwelling unit, Fire Marshall's report, adequate emergency vehicle turn- around space, etc. Will make revisions and come back for a 1068 at a later date. C. 1068 Review for Triplex const. at 834 Cherry Street, Kenneth Edwards applicant. Noel Moore representative. Based on staff report made by R.J. Ritchey, approval was granted subject to recommendations and parti- cipation in a L.I.D. for Cherry Street when Cherry Street is improved; with pavings, curbs, gutters and sidewalks as required. D. 1068 Review for 4-plex const. at 285 W. Pine Street (at Glenn Way) part of Tax Lot 100; Applicants Jones & Peterson. Representative Steve Jones was present. Staff report prepared by R.J. Ritchey was presented. In order to allow for future widening of W. Pine, Recommendation of variance to rear lot line setback will be considered. Miscellaneous matters Planning Commission feeling that if for some reason Kilby property is withdrawn or conditional use runs out, the property should revert to an R-1-8 zoning from the applicant's R-3 property. fik . '% CONDITIONASE PERMIT HEARING PROCED (This form should be used for each C.U.P. public hearing) APPLICANT: Adonda T. Meadows, 112 Saxbury Drive, Central Point, Oregon J.C. map 37 2W 10 BC, tax lot 8000 Block 6 Lot 1 of West Pine Villa PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE: Family home unit Day care for children Subd. in a R-1-8 zone. DATE OF HEARING : June 6, 1978 and continued to June 20, 1978 at 7:30 PM INTRODUCTORY , REMARKS (Read Aloud) : This is the time set for the public hearing on the conditional use permit . application of Adonda T. Meadows to make the following use: provide day care for children at her home , of property zoned' R-1-8 The rules of this hearing will be as follows : _ (1) The proponents, or those in favor of the. conditional use permit, will be given the right to speak first and to offer exhibits in favor of the proposed conditional use permit. Any exhibits offered will be retained by the Planning Commission as part of the record of this hearing. • (2) Members of the Planning Commission and opponents to the conditional use permit will be entitled to ask questions of the proponents. in an orderly fashion. (3) Opponents, or those against the proposed conditional use permit will be given the opportunity to speak and present any exhibits they wish in opposition to the conditional use permit. (4) Members of the Planning Commission and proponent's may then ask any questions they wish of the opponents, in an orderly fashion. (5) The public hearing will then be declared closed and the Planning Commission will deliberate the proposed conditional use permit. • ! • lir ' The Planning Commission may, if they choose, ask uestions of either proponents or opponents during this segment of the hearing, but members of the public will `not have the' right, without 'the consent of the chairman, to present' additional information. During deliberations by the Planning Commission, we are obligated t to follow the rules set forth in Central Point Municipal Code, Section 17.76.040. These rules require the following : (1) Burden of proof to support the conditional use permit require- ments is on the applicant. (2) - The .Planning Commission must make written findings of fact, setting out their reasons for the findings, on each_of the following issues: (a) That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use and all yards, spaces, walls -and ' fences, parking, loading, landscaping and other features required by this section, to adjust said use with land and uses in the neighborhood; (b) That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways adequate in width and pavement type to carry the quantity and kind of traffic generated by the proposed use; (c) That the proposed use will have no adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this deter- mination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circu- lation; setbacks, height of buildings; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lights; signs; (d) That the conditions stated in the resolution are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Conditions may include: Page 2 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING PROCEDURE Alk c 1. Special yards, spaces and buffers, 2. Fences and walls, 3. Enclosure of storage areas and limitation on out-of-door display of merchandise, 4. Surfacing of parking areas subject to specifications, 5. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, 6. Regulation of signs, 7. Requiring landscaping and maintenance .thereof, 8. Requiring maintenance of the grounds, 9. Regulation of noise, vibration, odors, etc. 10. Regulation of time for certain activities, 11. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed, -12. A bond for removal-of such use within a specified period of time, 13. Such other conditions as will make possible the development of the City in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purpose set forth in this section, PUBLIC HEARING PORTION (Read Aloud) t(i) DOES ANYONE WISH TOSPEAK' IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. . (A/low proponents to speak. ) (2) DOES ANYONE WISH TO ASK THE PROPONENTS ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THEIR PRESENTATION. (Allow questions in an orderly manner. ) (3) DOES ANYONE AGAINST THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WISH TO SPEAK. (Allow opponents to speak. ) (4) DOES ANYONE WISh TO ASK THE OPP0NENTS ANY QUESTIONS. (Allow questions in an orderly manner. ) . . (5) DOES ANYONE WISH TO ADD ANY INFORMATION EITHER IN FAVOR OF OR AGAINST THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. (6) THE PUBLIC HEARING IS DECLARED CLOSED. DELIBERATION BY PLANNING COMMISSION : (1) General discussion. (2) Specific findings. The Chairman should read the provisions of Page 3 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARING PROCEDURE 41110 •1: r 4 Section 17.76.040 to the Planning Commission and ask them to make a determination on each. When the determination is reached by majority vote, together with reasons, the Chairman should fill in the following spaces : (A) Adequacy of site. up to 12 children requested, governed by State Regulations; the City has no regulationsapplicable to request. (8) Traffic. Does not create traffic problems (C) No adverse effect. No adverse effects except Covenants covering the Subdivision and on file with the City, as part of the Subdivision approval,. do not allow businesses in the Subdivision (0) Any additional conditions imposed by Planning Commission. 1. Limit to 10 children; 2. ' If nuisance factor occurs, applicant can be brought back to answer to the Planning ='Commission, or cited into the Municipal Court. 3. As a Non-conforming use, cannot hire any outside help. 4. Sign regulations must apply, sign no larger than 1 square:foot. 5. Must maintain the residential nature as before. 6. Must obtain City business license annually. Page 4 - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT HEARINGPROCEDURE'