Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes - February 17, 1998CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 1998 Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. II ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyn Johnson. Angela Curtis was absent. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Jim Bennett, City Administrator, Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official, and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES A. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for January 20, 1998, as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Pamela Norris to Vary from the Side Lot Setback for a Second Storv Residential Building Addition. Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing. There were no conflicts of interest or ex-pane communications. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Mrs. Pamela Norris, 1115 Rose Valley Drive, Central Point, applicant stated she needed another room because of family size. Neighboring property owners expressed their support of the proposal in writing. John LeGros, 800 Freeman Road, Central Point, stated there are several two story houses in that area. City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1998 -Page 2 Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 414 approving the request by Pamela Norris to Vary from the Side Lot Setback for a Second Story Addition to her home at 1115 Rose Valley Drive, Central Point. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. Open Discussion with Local Contractors about Development on Narrow and Small Lots. City Standards and Padlots. Tom Humphrey stated that there have been a number of questions and issues raised by contractors and City staff concerning small lots and padlots This will be an open discussion concerning some of those issues. The following came forward and spoke in the discussion: Ben Zare, 339 W. Valley View Drive, Ashland, Oregon, was concerned with the expense of the common wall on padlots but supported their use in Central Point as housing for first time house buyers. Gary Whittle, 1588 Upland Place, Medford, OR., was concerned with the setbacks for the development of padlots. He also recommended that the City allow a limited number of small lots in a regular subdivision. Lois DeBenedetti, stated there are different building standards for constructing padlots vs. a duplex. Padlots are two separate single family dwellings and need separate hookups on utilities. Jim Talent, 576 Mt. View, Central Point, OR, was concerned with setbacks in the side yards, and the two covered parking spaces required. These code requirements limit the living area within each padlot home. Mayor McGrath stated that he would like the code to be clear rather than rely on variances so builders know what is required when they walk in the front door. Tom Humphrey charted the advantages, disadvantages and recommendations brought up in the discussion, a copy of which is in the City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1998 -Page 3 file. He also reviewed excerpts from the State workbook, House Plans for Narrow and Small Lots. C. Site Plan Aoarovals and Associated Fees Tom Humphrey stated that there are numerous references to fees scattered throughout the municipal code. He would like to take the fees out of the code and set up in a schedule so the code does not have to be revised to change the fees and so applicants are immediately aware of the costs associated with new development. Tom stated that City Council sets fees and changes them. Tom stated that he would also like to consider a charge by the hour for the site application review rather than the set fee now shown. Some applications do not require much time to review and in others the fees can be waived. He'd like to develop some consistency. Planning Commission concurs that all of the fees should be taken out of the municipal code and put on a schedule of fees. VII MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey reviewed future agendas. VIII ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m.