Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 12, 1973 Central Point Planning Commission Minutes of Special Meeting February 12, 1973 Meeting opened at 7:35 P.M. with Chairman Bowers presiding. Three project matters were before the Commission, reviewed by the Review Board and ready for action this evening. For the record, Chairman Bowers stated that all Commission members were present with the exception of .Member Hull. Also in attendance were City Attorney DuBay, City Engineer Westwood, Asst. City Administrator Tate. In the audience were Councilmembers Hamer, Malot, Mills as well as numerous interested persons in- cluding Attorney Foster for Conifer 313, Bob Knight for proposed Tri-plex. (Mrs. Malot representing Tom Malot Construction Co. ) Chairman Bowers, looking overkeports of January 30th for review, stated the en- compassing reports were studied and observations will be noted. The order of business for presentation will be 1. Read the report, 2. Commission's disposition called for, and 3. Vote and signature on appropriate documents. Before proceeding further, it was announced that Mr. Fletcher (Conifer 313) is to arrive later from the airport from a 7:40 P.M. flight. This Commission will with- hold any discussion on this matter until then. Commissionmember Hull arrived at 7:38 P.M. Study period-ensued on the reports at hand. Chairman Bowers requested -Secretary Banks to read report on a proposed Triplex at 8th-& Cherry Streets, Bob Knight, agent. After brief discussion, roll call in the affirmative, unanimously, to approve this Triplex upon recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City -Council. Attorney DuBay ruled that the record show the recommendation was approved .as .signed. (Triplex at 8th & Cherry, R. Knight, Agent- approved Member Zieser questioned if this was sufficient action. Chairman Bowers informed all that if these recommendations are met (see report) , it is sufficient. Other- wise Mr. Knight has the right to appeal if he does not wish to comply with the recom- mendations listed in the Planning Commission Review Board report. Chairman Bowers, moving to proceed with next item on Agenda, stated Secy. Banks will read the report of West Pine Garden Apt. Complex, T. Malot Construction Co. This was done. Chairman Bowers informed Commission that this was a special meeting to expedite Planning Commission matters rather than wait until the meet- ing of the 20th. Member Zieser questioned "recommendations and findings" on Report of West Pine Gardent Apts. Regarding Items 1, 2, 4, 7 & 10: were they findings"9 and if so, how can Mr. Malot control traffic on West Pine Street? Observation on impact study refers to items 1, 2, etc. . Zieser stated that he felt nothing could be done to control what has been determined by this impact study. Chairman Bowers stated that items 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9 are recommendations (see report). Member Zieser inquired if Mrs. Malot could answer these requirements. Mrs. Malot was invited by the Chair to answer if she would. Mrs. Malot said Fire Marshall's report had been submitted and they expect his report within 4 weeks, with an indication of no problems. o Stop signs- no problem and none anticipated, Fire escapes can easily be attached to the rear of building, the impact of traffic will be diffi- cult to control, and regarding item 10- architectural surroundings; feels their structure would beautify the area because it is currently sub-standard at present. Chairman Bowers informed Mrs. Malot she had overlooked item 7 (water and sewer rate) with individual server rates recommended. Mrs. Malot continuing, said she felt that Planning Commission and City Council could come to a reasonable , rate fee on an individual rate basis and she felt it would be acceptable to the owners. Atty. DuBay stated Planning Commission is trying to .approve certain things, i.e. , egress and ingress, fire escapes, etc. The things the developer is required to do must be set forthwith specific plans he continued, with motion by Planning Commission to grant application with specific items to be complied with. In other words. . . a strong motion subject to those items specifically called out; i.e. , 3, 5, 6, 8 & 9 in the plans. Chairman Bowers inquired of Atty. DuBay if motion reflect in the Minutes would be clear enough. Atty. DuBay stated yes, it would be satisfactory. Further-discussion continued. Member Damon questioned if the fire marshall would be concerned with egress and ingress? Chairman Bowers stated he did-not know. Dixon inquired if further report was available from the engineering firm. Chairman Bowers informed all that nothing further since the Review Board meet- ing. Member Zieser made the motion to pass this application upon items 3, 6, 8 & 9 tieing complied with. Motion seconded by Dixon. No further questions and all votes cast in the affirmative with the exception of 3 "naves" by Members Banks, Damon, and Mayes. The majority vote in favor of approval of application with compliance as stated above concerning items 3, 6, 8 & 9. Motion made by Bradshaw to reconsider the previous motion. This action seconded by Mayes. Roll call vote. Two members in opposition were Zieser and Dixon. Majority vote to reconsider. Roll call was required again on ' the first motion to pass the application approval on West Pine Garden Apart- ments. The voting was Bull- yes, -Dixon- yes, Mayes- no, Zieser- yes, Damon- no, Bradshaw- no, McManama- yes, Banks- no, and Chairman Bowers voting yes (5 to 4 in favor) to approve application of West Pine Garden Apartments with compliance as requested. The "original" of the impact study report on this subject was passed around the Council table for each member' s signature. From question by Mrs. Malot, Chairman Bowers stated that items 3, 6, 8 & 9 to be complied with is the approval of the Planning Commission. Chairman Bowers continuing with Agenda items, moved next to Item 3 Conifer 313 Development. Mr. Moriarity representing Conifer was in attendance a this time arriving at 8:38 PM) and was introduced to Commission Chairman by Atty. Foster. Chairman Bowers requested Secy. Banks to read the Review Board report on Conifer 313. This was done. Comments from Commission members followed. Member Zieser questioned items 8 & 15 on the report and inquired what was source of input? Chairman Bowers answered from the City Engineer's report. Dixon inquired if he were not present at a prior meeting when this was dis- cussed before? Chairman Bowers said "Yes, but as a member of the audience and not sitting as a Commission member at that particular meeting". Dixon requested a copy of Atty. DuBay's letter of February 5th mention in above reading of the report on Conifer 313. - This material -was passed to him while Secy. Banks -read aloud this letter also to all members present. Member Zieser question if this was not a Planned Unit Development and if it is up to this Commission to determine whether it is or not a planned unit development? Zieser continuing, inquired if Conifer's -report to Mayor McBee was received and read by the Commission body. Chairman Bowers stated yes, by all members but was not received until February 8th and not in time to put into the Planning Commission Review Board report. Mr. Moriarity was asked for comments on other Conifer Developments- "Tacoma 103, Olympia (Washington) 111, Portland 301, and the Eugene Development". Moriarity stated that some of these other units contain only 1 bedroom; thereby necessi- tating "adjustment slightly" . to reflect the lack of 1 bedroom units in the proposed 313 Development. Ile stated in summary that the report to Mayor McBee was a true, and reasonable statement in answer to the City Staff impact study- more real compact structure, more compact in school! Member Banks inquired why was not the project in Tacoma ( 'that went busted' ) not stated as such in your report to Mayor McBee? Mr. Moriarity stated that 1. Not theirs any longer having different owners, 2. Experimental but not successful, and 3. Sociological well-intended but not sociologically mature. The project had been $200,000. over subsidized by their company and were into mortgage reserve and these funds were not regenerated into the development when less than 90 occupancy, and that Conifer Developers have been re-assured by FHA that even tho the Tacoma 103 Development did not succeed, it would not cast "a shadow over the 25-30 form" and affect their.future financing by FHA. Commission member Mayes questioned the Eugene �,roject- if financed on population (100,000)? Mr. Moriarity answered that Tacoma with 155,000 population has 90% occupancy, Olympia and Eugene developments reflect heavy-married-student population occupancy. Mrs. Bradshaw asked age of each project. She was answered that Tacoma 32 years, Portland 22 years, Olympia 12 years and Eugene Development 6 months as far as occupancy readiness. Member Dixon inquired of number of adults in the Eugene unit. Mr. Moriarity responded with "87 adults from total of 64 units or 1.3 adults per apartment". Member Damon asked length and turnover of occupancy in Conifer 0 projects. Mr. Moriarity stated he was truly unable to give the figure-- "up- ward mobile occupancy from young mobile people" stating a credit check is run every 6 months on the tenants with 20116 less than 6 months occupancy and a figure of 80% over-6 months, with average stay of occupancy of 1 to 12 years, he guessed. Member Dixon inquired of rent for a 2-bedroom unit, and what amount would be subsidized? Mr. Moriarity answered $119.00 and limited income determines sub- sidy with 1% of the lowest; rent is increased as income increases. Dixon con- tinued-- "man earning $4800. per annum with family of 3 and would he be subsi- dized and what would he pay in rent? 'Mr. Moriarity stated the difference is in rental to that person. Mrs. Bradshaw informed all that "when we first heard of this project Mr. Fletcher explained that single women with 2 to 3 children would be occupying Conifer 313. Now you state it will be young couples on the way up! She continued: "Our report reflects all will be school-age and new tenants to the City". Mr. Moriarity stated that these will be 'eitizens already in Central Point needing housing and the elderly as well. This project will comply and will reflect shoal kids already in school and provide the necessary housing. Chairman Bowers stated that the places these people vacate to move into your project will attract newcomers to the housing vacated, thereby affecting City services, taxes, etc. Member Zieser inquired of Mr. Moriarity if FHA requires maintenance of the facilities, management, landscaping, etc. The answer was "yes, very strictly, and they (Conifer) will provide management to supervise these matters during the 1-year guarantee period". Member Zieser inquiring of the City Engineer's report and recommendations if Conifer had complied with their recommendations as prior directed on other.previous matters of this nature. City Engr. ' Westwood stated he had not' discussed any recommendation with the Developer. Mr. Moriarity informed Commission that he, himself, had discussion with Mr. Fletcher on on-site road but could not recall Fletcher.'s answer. Member Banks stated he thought it was recommended a 36' street. Mr. Westwood, after looking at the plans, stated that the road. as*drawn not to scale but appeared to be a20' street. "Yes, it is a 20' street leading off of West Pine". Question was asked what happens if project goes back to MIA. Mr. Moriarity answered that a new sponsor would have to be determined and con- tinue on FHA for 40'years. Member Hull stated that widening of this street by the construction firm as ' the first recommendation. Mr. Moriarity respond- ing stated some widening is indicated but he felt 36' is "an unreasonable request". "The project reflects a good site plan to zoning requirements at the time it was drawn up". Member Banks questioned accessibility of emergency equipment. Mr. Moriarity felt that a' 36' paved street was "extra-ordinary" request with off-street parking required and not unless the City was to maintain the street he couldn't respond to this request. (36' street width) without giving it the proper, consideration it requires! " No further questions. Chairman Bowers stated he would prefer sending this report to the City Council from the Planning Commission with the recommendations as written unless this body has something further to state. Member Zieser stated this report should reflect increased traffic is a "finding", not a "recommendation". Zieser, continuing, "This report should clarify which are, "findings" or "recommenda- tions". Chairman Bowers answered: . Item 1 Finding, 2. .finding,. 3. finding, 4. finding or supposition, 5. , recommendation, (but Council to decide), , 6. finding, 7. recommendation, 8. recommendation, 9. recommendation, 10. recommendation, 11. recommendation, 12. recommendation, 13. recommendation, 14. recommendation and 15. recommendation. Attorney DuBay inquired if Com- mission is operating under Ordinance #1068? Chairman Bowers stated this matter is under review according to Ordinance #1068. . Chairman Bowers informed Commission that we can approve or deny this plan (Conifer 313) . Our findings will be turned over to Council for them to determine as City government officials. If approved, conditionally approve, or deny. If denied the Developer can appeal to the City Council. More dis- cussion- Member Zieser on item 3 "sidewalks" questioned. Chairman Bowers stated sidewalks in subdivisions is required. Mrs. Bradshaw; ."would these recommendations be the same in Item 10 for. Malot also?" The answer,.:given was "yes". Mr. Foster questioned "internal street-size--what size?" "And paving of Snowy Butte Road?" Chairman Bowers informed him this size matter would be turned over to the City Council. Snowy Butte ventilation to be paved would be this Commission's recommendation to the City Council as well. Attorney DuBay stated that the Commission had 3 alternatives in this matter; approve, conditionally approve, or deny. Member Banks interpreting this stated it would be a conditional approval if "approved" is recorded on the report form. Mr. Moriarity questioned fire escapes from 2nd floor. Chairman Bowers answered "that if -Fire Marshall does not require 2nd floor fire es- capes, neither shall we!" Roll Call requested. Hull yes, Dixon yes, Mayes no, Zieser yes, Damon no, Bradshaw no, McManama no, Banks no, Bowers no. -(Voting tally- 6 no' s and 3 yes's). Approval application denied for Conifer 313 Development. Attorney Foster asked for grounds for denial. Chairman Bowers informed him "as is reflected in the report". Atty. Foster answered this statement with "that Conifer Developers had complied with the zone requirements". Atty. Foster was then informed he had the right of appeal to the City Council. Mr. Moriarity asked for a copy of this Commission's report and their denial be furnished them from the Commission. Request was honored by Asst. Cil y Admin- istrator Tate that copy would be furnished. Chairman Bowers inquired of Commission members of further business- any miscellaneous to be brought up this night. McManama inquired of TV cable sewer readout on Pine Street status. City Engineer Westwood informed all that it was determined the whole sewer in question was in poor condition and cannot be related to Northwest Printed Circuits input. The age of this sewer line is a major factor. Chairman Bowers, in closing, stated the new innovation of filing reports has been expressed a helpful instrument to the Council and•Mayor for their action. Continuing, expressed gratitude for City Attorney's attendance at this meeting this evening. Attorney DuBay had several comments at this time. "ORS 11.040 should be the basis upon approval of Commission action- specifically items 1 thru 7 for future usage in preparing reports. Under Ordinance #1068 certain items are pertinent, i.e. , item 1 ingress and egress, item 2 off-street parking and flow facilities and capabilities of use. Item 3 accessibility, item 4 fire- fighting equipment, etc. , "and any other reports or information required by the Planning Commission deemed necessary',!. Attorney DuBay said the denial of Conifer 313 should be spelled out as stated under Ordinance #1068. 'Chair- man Bowers thanked Attorney DuBay for his recommendations as well-received, and in the future this Commission will find his advice most helpful. A motion for adjournment was entertained as no further business was presented. Motion made by Banks, seconded by Mayes. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 P.M. Tape ending at 1023' reading).