Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Minutes - July 19, 1994 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes July 19, 1994 - Page One I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER - 7:05 II. ROLL CALL: Present were: Chuck Piland, Herb Farber, Candy Fish, Lloyd Governor, Randy Graves (late arrival). Also present were George Rubaloff- Planning Administrator, Larry R. Blanchard-Public Works Director, Mark Servatius, Fire Chief/Building Official, Mike Cully, Building Inspectorand Cecelia Gordon-Public Works Secretary. Karolyne Johnson had notified the Commission that she would be unable to attend. III. CORRESPONDENCE - None IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Commissioner Governor moved to approve the Minutes of the July 5, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting correcting the above omission. Commissioner Governor seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote: Farber, yes; Fish, yes Governor, yes, AND Graves, abstain, and the Motion passed unanimously. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCE - None VI. BUSINESS ' A_. Public Hearing Review and Determination regarding zoning variance for substandard lot size on property in the vicinity of Ash and 7th Streets. Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing. George Rubaloff reviewed the Notice of Public Hearing dated June 29, 1994 including the Nature of Hearings, Criteria for Decision, Public Comments and Summary of Procedure. There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parte communication. George Rubaloff reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report dated July 11, 1994, which included the Request, Standard, Criteria, the Land Use History, Discussion and Conclusion and entered the following items into the record by reference: Notice of Public Hearing, dated June 29, 1994, Maps, Variance Application, and Public Works Staff Report, dated July 15, 1994. George also read the following exhibits to the Commission and entered them into the record as well: July 14, 1994 letter from the Lloyd Deweys concerning a request for easements, a letter from Brad Owen dated July 17, 1994 stating opposition to the project, and a letter from Fred and Ann Britt, dated July 18, 1994 expressing their concerns about the proposed structure. Larry Blanchard, Public Works Director, had no additional comments other than those listed in the Public Works Staff Report, but stated that he was available to answer any questions or concerns from the Commissioners. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1994 - Page Two William Mansfield, Attorney at Law, 313 S. Ivy, Medford, Oregon, representing the applicant, came forward in support of the zoning Variance. He introduced members of the Board of Directors for Habitat for Humanity, Nancy Fedder, residing at 1883 Canyon Drive, Medford, Oregon. Ms. Fedder gave a brief description of their organization, stating that they go into partnership with the family to help them build a home. They also lend the family a loan at NO interest. Fred Phillips, 345 N. Bartlett, Suite 203, Medford, Oregon came forward to give an explanation of how the organization came into possession of the lot at 7th and Ash Streets. He stated that he had surveyed the lot, talked with City staff in order to meet all City requirements. Jesse Heller, 201 Stanford, Medford came forward. Mr. Heller is a retired civil engineer who is on the Habitat for Humanity Board of Directors. He stated that the applicant had agreed to give the City a 7' wide easement to meet all City requirements, that the applicant had located the Dewey's water and sewer lines for them, and would gladly grant the easement. William Mansfield stated that the issue of a variance for the lot in question, was the size of the lot, that the proposed structure met all other City zoning requirements. He stated further that the project would be an advantage to the neighborhood with no significant adverse effect, would utilize the property within the zoning, that the lot is smaller than standard (not the proposed project) and that the size of the lot problem was not self imposed that the applicant had approached the City in good faith. Lloyd Mann, 625 Ash Street, Central Point, Oregon (located 1 lot west of proposed project) came forward in opposition to the proposed zoning variance. Mr. Mann said that he felt the legal description of the lot (from Jackson County Recorder's Office) was not correct because it did not match the old township map. (1887). He also produced a letter dated February 7, 1977 from R.J. SEE ATTACHED EXERPTS FROM TAPE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1994 - Page Three Richey, then the City Building Inspector showing that the City recognized that lot as substandard. Mr. Mann also complained that someone trimmed the trees on the lot and left and did not clean up the cuttings. (he passed some photos around to the Commission). Mr. Mansfield responded by stating that the Surveyor (Dick Bath) and their Engineer for the applicant had surveyed the lot and were satisfied that the lot did meet the legal description. He inquired if Mr. Mann's opposition had any professional proof of legal description interpretations. Larry Blanchard stated that the original lot description was recorded based on the original plat map. However, when future subdivisions to the east were developed, street rights of way were dedicated and could have changed the lot dimension. Mr. Blanchard has reviewed the legal description and was satisfied ' with the lot description. Commissioner Herb Farber, who is a surveyor, stated that if Dick Bath established that the legal description of the lot was correct, then it is a valid description. Jim Hoiness, (Board Member of Habitat for Humanity) 888 Wilson Road, Ashland, Oregon came forward to state that Pacific Power and Light had trimmed the tree on the lot, and that if the applicant did not know they needed to follow up. It was a matter of misunderstanding of who should have moved the debris, and that this type of oversight would not happen in the future. Rusty McGrath, 98 Freeman Road, came forward and stated issues are the size of the lot. He asked, if we are opening the door for others if we approve this lot size, and water and sewer lines on the property. No one else came forward in support of, or in opposition to the proposed variance. Chairman Piland closed the Public Hearing. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1994 - Page Four Commissioner Candy Fish stated that she knew of at least two other substandard lots that had been created in the City. Commissioner Randy Graves asked why the Commission was toiling with this item, that all criteria have been met, there is no significant safety problems unique to this lot, and precedents were set on undersized lots already built on. He also stated that survey errors are made, that is why the variance process is there to correct past errors. Lloyd Mann, spoke out that he felt he had been insulted, and that he wanted to comment further. He was informed that the public portion of the hearing was over. Mr. Mann left the hearing. There were no further questions,comments or concerns, Chairman Piland asked if the-Commission was ready to propose a motion. Commissioner Farber moved that they approve Resolution 296 for the zoning e variance on the substandard lot size on property in the vicinity of Ash and 7th Streets T37 2W Section 11 BB Tax lot 6100 on the condition that the written easement for sewer and water be established upon Applicant's Findings and testimony and City staff reports and subject to lines located upon the property prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Commissioner seconded the Motion Roll Call Vote: Farber. Fish Yes: Governor Yes and Graves. yes and the Motion carried unanimously. B. Review and Determination regarding an application for Final Plat on Unit No 4 of Forest Glen Subdivision located east of Bursell Road. Herb Farber declared a conflict of interest as surveyor of the project and left his seat on the commission and sat in the audience. There were no additional conflicts of interest or ex-parte communication. George Rubaloff reviewed his Memorandum of July 14, 1994 including the preface, Decision Criteria, Background, and Review, and entered the following items into the record by reference: Location Map, Application for Final Plat, Resolution No. 286 approving Plan for Unit No. 4, Forest Glen, Copy of Approved Tentative Plan for Unit No. 4, Resolution No. 293 approving Subdivision Variance, Memo from Public Works Department dated 7/14/94, Proposed Resolution Approving Final Plat, Proposed Development Agreement. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1994 - Page Five Larry Blanchard referred to his Staff Report (Memorandum) of July 14, 1994 and stated that the requirements not covered under the letter of credit were items m. which had been completed. and item n. that a letter was on file from Rogue Valley Transit District waiving the need for bus turn-outs in this development. The remaining item o. concerned the owner securing the necessary easement to provide for a temporary gravel turn-around at the end of Heather Lane was included in the letter of credit. Herb Farber, 908 E. Jackson, Medford, representing the owner, came forward to ask if the temporary turn around was still necessary, since there would be a street cut through to serve the new Valley Point Subdivision. Herb Farber also stated that the developer was negotiating with the property owner of the lot where the street needs to cut through. Herb also stated that he believed the amount of the bond would cover all the remaining contingencies. He noted also that the bond is written for a period of 30 days, and therefore, the conditions would all be met by that time. There were no further questions or concerns expressed. Commissioner Fish moved for approval of Resolution #297 for Final Plat on Unit No. a of Forest Glen Subdivision located east of Bursell Road subject to the conditions in the staff reports Commissioner seconded the Motion Roll Call Vot • Fish yes* Governor, . yes and Graves yes. The Motion carried unanimously. Public Hearing Review and Determination regarding Tentative Plan Application for Unit No. 5 of Forest Glen Subdivision located generally west of 1-5 Freeway. George Rubaloff reviewed the Notice of Public Hearing dated July 29, 1994, including the Nature of Hearings, Criteria for Decision, Public Comments and Summary of Procedure. Herb Farber declared a conflict of interest as surveyor for the subdivision and remained at his seat in the audience. There were no further conflicts or ex- parte communication. Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1994 - Page Six George Rubaloff reviewed his Memorandum of July 14, 1994, including the Tentative Plan, Process, Standards, Land Use History, Zoning Review, and Conclusion and entered the following items into the record by reference: Notice of Public Hearing, dated July 29, 1994, Mailing List for Notice (100 Ft. radius), Maps and Plans, Application and Public Works Department Staff Report dated July 14, 1994. Larry R. Blanchard stated that Green Park Subdivision #5 had been approved last month with the condition that they jointly (see #12 in conditions in Exhibit in the Staff Report dated July 14, 1994.) construct a box culvert across Elk Creek with the Forest Glen #5 Developer. Herb Farber, 908 E. Jackson, Medford, Oregon, representing the Developer, came forward in support of the Tentative Plan Application. He stated that he had been through the Public Works Staff Report and agreed with that report except that Lot 195 should read a 20' storm drain easement and lots 164, 165, and 194 should read 16' storm drainage easement. Larry Blanchard stated that these revisions would be made to Item IN 2 in the Staff Report. No one else came forward in support of or in opposition to the Tentative Plan. Commissioner Graves moved that they aoorove Resolution #298 for approval of the Tentative Plan Application for unit No 5 of Forest Glen Subdivision located west of 1-5 Freeway. Commissioner Fish seconded the Motion. Roll Call Vote: Fish, yes; Governor, yes and Graves, yes, and the Motion carried unanimously. Commissioner Farber returned to his seat on the Commission. VII. MISCELLANEOUS - Commissioner Fish had requested staff to look into the Willow Glen project concerning the difference in the way the buildings looked as they are being built, compared to the way they were represented to the Planning Commission. George Rubaloff the project engineer (Multi-Tech) intends to dress up the buildings with shutters on each of the windows. The Commissioner concurred that this modification would be acceptable. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 1994 - Page Seven Chairman Piland stated that there is an identical project in Salem, Oregon and that shutters did make it look better. He also commended Commissioner Fish for her perserverence in the matter. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Farber moved for adjournment, Commissioner Graves seconded the Motion. All voted aye and the meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m. JULY 19, 1994 - PLANNING COMMISSION EXCERPTS FROM TAPE 1, SIDE B Transcription # 000 to Transcription # 608 - (45 Minutes) Lloyd Mann's Stated Opposition: Took exception to legal description of lot, eluded to permit being issued in error. Talked about size of lot, history of lot, discussed a document from R.J.Richey (Building Official in 1968) which denied a building permit for the lot based on the undersize. Mr. Mann also questioned the set backs, said he had done over 100 hours of research in this matter. He said the County Assessor's description of the lot is wrong. He talked about R2-Zone Requirements - said that the lot did not have a 70' aggregate width. He also discussed the 20' wide driveway in the side yard on 7th Street. Talked about the danger of the intersection, that someone could be killed. He also said that there was not proper setbacks from his fence and admonished staff to "read your ordinances". He also said that he felt the front of the lot would be the Ash Street side. Mr. Mann also talked about the 20' setback from the property line, and that the judge will uphold his findings. (124) GEORGE RUBALOFF explained the 20' setback was talking about the most southerly line abutting Ash Street.........) Mr. Mann referred to another ordinance "inner court access...CPMC 17.24.070(b) PILAND - stop to read ordinance (145) GEORGE RUBALOFF - the standard in CPMC 17.24.070(b) refers to two units (duplex) on one lot. Lloyd Mann continues....you have to see the actual lot to see how much room the house will take up on the lot. Mr. Mann then talked about the trees being cut and limbs left on the lot, and said he had pictures to show this debris. He talked about the fact that the neighbors, the Deweys and he had been maintaining the weed cutting, etc. on the empty lot. Testimony Lloyd Mann-Page Two July 19, 1994 Planning Commission Meeting (180) Mr. Mann said that Habitat for Humanity planned to build a house for a family and that this would put children in the street, which would be very dangerous. Also the driveway would cause the occupants to back out on to the dangerous street. Mr. Mann asked who the contractor of record was. The answer was "Tom Malot". Mr. Mann asked if Mr. Hoiness was a representative of Tom Malot7 Mr. Hoiness answered NO, that he was a representative of Habitat for Humanity. (207) Mr. Mann stated that the application was signed by Hoiness, and that it should have been the contractor. Mr. Mann also stated that there was not a signature by the Building Official but initials of someone else. (220) Mr. Mann asked that after Mr. Mansfield's rebuttal that he be allowed speaking time to give his answers. He also stated that his insurance company had written to him concerning the debris on the lot. He showed photos of the lot to the Commission. MR MANSFIELD's REBUTTAL Mr. Mansfield asked to examine the exhibits presented by Mr. Mann. Mr. Mansfield said that the applicant had applied for this building permit in good faith and had presented their application for a variance going by all the rules and regulations and that they were satisfied with Dick Bath's work concerning the description and measurements of the lot. Mr. Mansfield stated that the opponent was only offering his opinion and did not have the professional documents to support the opposition's case. CANDY FISH stated that she read and understood the legal description. Lloyd Mann Testimony - Page Three July 19, 1994 - Planning Commission Meeting Rubaloff stated that he could find all the references in the legal descriptions except for two distances. (315) Larry Blanchard stated that the original town plan was done way back when, that street dedications either added to or took away property. I Lot dimensions have not changed, just where they reference their point of closure. Candy Fish stated that we know where the street is. Herb Farber stated that the description is valid, and was satisfied with Dick Bath's credentials and statement concerning the lot. Mansfield Continues - He addressed the Richey letter, and said that he agreed the small size of the lot was a problem, that's why the applicant is asking for a variance. He stated that staff said the lot width meets requirements, and as far as a child being killed, (the health and safety concerns) that those concerns were addressed in Staffs report and that staff did not list any health or safety concerns. Lloyd Mann tries to speak and interrupts. Chairman Piland instructs Lloyd Mann to let Mr. Mansfield continue. Mr. Mansfield addressed the debris issue and said that the mistletoe and dead branches were removed from the trees were by PP&L and that the Habitat for Humanity did not had assumed that PP&L had removed the debris from the lot. He stated that when the Applicant was informed of the condition of the lot, the debris was removed the following day. Mr. Mansfield stated that as far as the issue of backing out of the lot, most of us back out of our lots onto the street. Mr. Mansfield stated that Mr. Hoiness was representative of owner on the Building Permit. Lloyd Mann interrupted again, repeating his concerns about initials on the building permit and was cautioned by Chuck Piland to Not interrupt Mr. Mansfield . Mike Cully, City Building Inspector stated that it is common practice throughout the State for designated staff to sign on the line as representative of City Building Official. Lloyd Mann Testimony - Page 4 July 19, 1994 - Planning Commission Meeting (495) Lloyd Mann took the floor once more and stated that he was disappointed with City Staff. He stated that he assumed the old township map was valid since it was surveyed and platted, he then referenced the proportion of the lot. Mr. Mann also stated that he was not a surveyor, but that he had common sense, and that a citizen should not be put down even though he may not be a professional. CANDY FISH stated that the lot in question had somewhat the same measurements of Lloyd Mann's lot. Lloyd Mann answered that his lot is an inside lot, and that he had more yard room (540) Lloyd Mann stated that he did not have a problem with building a house on the lot, but he had a problem with them building on a lot that was not big enough 1 for a 3 bedroom home, and would be better for a 1 bedroom retired couple's home. MANSFIELD - HAD NO FURTHER REBUTTAL Lloyd Mann stated that Mr. Mansfield had all those professional engineers. Lloyd Mann also stated that if his word as a public citizen is not as good as theirs, let him know right now, and he would be out of this, and the City would hear from his attorney. Lloyd Mann further stated that Mansfield referenced that the City should take the Applicant's word over his. Lloyd Mann said also that Mansfield implied that Lloyd was an idiot and they are professional...... END OF MR. MANN's TESTIMONY