Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApril 1, 1981 .l Citizens Advisory Committee Minutes April 1, 1981 City Hall Council Chambers Present were Chairman Grace Russell, Members Ginger Hitterling, Cliff Cordy, and Ed Gebhard arrived during the meeting. City Staff members present were Administrator David Kucera, Planners Dave Penicook and Ron Hough. Chairman Russell opened the meeting at 7:10 P.M. Two maps were presented for the Committee's review. One, a plat map showing location with meets and bounds of the proposed annexation at 37 21V 11C of Tax Lot 6400. The other, the Tentative Plat to be known as The Suncreek Subdivision. Chairman Russell read the purpose of the public meeting which was to review an annexation proposal for Tax Lot 6400 on Bursell Road, north of Edella and west of Pittview. She stated, for the record, that notice was provided of this meeting in the Medford Mail Tribune. The meeting procedures would be in accordance with Ordinance No. 1368. Chairman Russell asked for proponents of the annexation proposal. Verlyn Thomas, surveyor, of 304 South Holly Street, Medford stated he was representing the proponent Ted Friesen of 1906 Hazel Street, Medford, agent. Ile stated that the City's Comprehensive Plan shows the area as Medium Density. The property is within the Urban Growth Boundary. It is adjacent to the City limits. It is adjacent to the R-1-8 zoned property. All .facilities such as O sewer, water, power and telephone are available. VerIyn Thomas also reviewed L.C.D.C. 14 Goals and Guidelines. Goal 1 — Citizen Involvement — He stated that citizen involvement requirements had been met because the Citizens Advisory Committee is meeting here tonight as advertised with interested people present. Gaol 2 — Land Use Planning — He stated that Goal 2 had been met because the property is within the City's and County's Urban Growth Boundaries. Goal 3 — Agricultural Lands — He stated that this property is addressed in a formal Urban Growth Boundary. L.C.D.C. states if an area is within an Urban Growth Boundary, it removes any conflicts with the agricultural goal. If the area were not within the Urban Growth Boundary, then it must be shown that adequate public facilities are available; which they are because sewer and water and other utilities are available. It also must be proven that the area is physically developed which it is because it is surrounded by developed land; Valley Estates Subdivision is to the north of this property and west of it and Homestead Acres No. 2 is to the south of this property. It also must be proved that lands are needed for urbanization. This is also true because property is surrounded by urban density growth therefore it is needed for urban development. Goal 4 — Forest Lands — He stated that Goal #4 is not applicable. Goal 5 — Open spaces, Scenic & Historic Areas and Natural Resources — He stated that this goal is not applicable. page 2 - CAC Meeting of April 1, 1981 Goal 6 - Air, Water and Land Resources Quality - He stated that is is incumbent upon the City to annex this property rather than require a development to use septic tanks which would create a health hazard. It is not good planning to allow septic tanks within an urban density area. Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters & Hazards - He stated that this property is within a Flood Plain, therefore this goal is not applicable. Goal 8 - Recreational Needs - He stated that the City's requirement of a development after annexation is that a park be developed or a fee be paid in lieu of a park. This meets the needs of Recreation. Goal 9 - Economy of the State - He stated that 16 lots would have no effect upon the economy of the State one way or another. Goal 10 - Housing - He stated that this Goal requires that cities insure and protect future housing requirements. A community must maintain an inventory of available lots or prices will escalate. Cities must furnish lands as economically as possible. Annexation maintain an inventory and promotes a lower cost. No R-1-8 lots are available in the southeast part of the City. Goal 11 - Public Facilities and Services. Public facilities are adjacent to the property. There is adequate sewage treatment plant and line capacity and water capacity. City Police and Fire services will be available. Goal 12 - Transportation - The City and the County should be joining in a transportation study. Ed Gebhard arrived. Mr. Thomas stated that he has checked the County and the average ADT (average daily traffic) is 1330 vehicles on Bursell and Hopkins Roads. These roads were the old State Highway 99 with a 6 to 8 inch concrete base and it will hold a fantastic amount of traffic. Mr. Thomas stated that he has talked with Jackson County Roads Department Traffic Engineer Dave Hutson who has said that .1400 to 1582 is okay for Bursell Road and this subdivision would have no adverse impact. Goal 13 - Energy Conservation - Facilities are adjacent to the property. The street proposed is in an east-west direction, therefore it will create the maximum solar influence. Goal 14 - Urbanization - He stated that the fact that this property is within the old urban growth boundary it already addresses its availability as urban- izable property. It is incorporated within the Urban Growth Boundary which is planned for the next 20 years. Gtr. Thomas summarized by stating he feels the proposal meets all of the 14 Goals and Guidelines required by L.C.D.C. and that the annexation would have no adverse impact to the City of Central Point. A question and answer period followed which Mr. Thomas stated that the exist- ing drainage ditch on the property will be routed to an easement along a propertyline which will join an existing easement and drainage system in the subdivision to the north. This is standard engineering procedures. Two of the cul-de-sac front footages are 36 feet in width and it would take a cul-de- sac with a tremendous diameter to create lots with a larger front footage. page 3 - CAC Meeting of April 1, 1981 Cliff Cordy noted that the subdivisions lots that were on the cul-de-sac were much wider not very far back from the street which would give more room for building. In response to a question, Administrator Kucera stated that the cul-de-sac would meet Fire Department requirements, if it met •City standards; Verlyn Thomas in response to other questions, stated that the proposed subdivision would have R-1-8 lots with a 1,000 square foot minimum. Fire Department prefers a double access with two different streets into the subdivision rather than a subdivision with just a cul-de-sac street coming from Bursell. Larry Nolte, 3312 Edella, stated that he didn't want the subdivision load to go from Edella to Bursell due to the additional traffic. that it would create on Edella which is a County road and would not handle traffic because it is not designed to do so. Chairman Russell stated that 4 lots in the proposed subdivision would be using Edella. However, major traffic flow from this subdivision would be on Bursell where cars could go in either direction. Mr. Thomas stated that the average driver would not take a residential street when he can take an arterial. Ten percent of the traffic may go down Edella. Edella is dedicated as a County road and when this property 0 is annexed, the portion of Edella within the annexation; namely, the cul- de-sac, becomes a City street by County option. Chairman Russell asked if there were any further proponents of the annexation. There were none. She then asked for opponents to the annexation. Dick Moorman, 3478.Edella, stated that no traffic ADTs were given for Edella. Was it able to handle the extra traffic. It is only an oiled-graveled road. . Two to three years ago a sewer line was built on Bursell and it is not the same street that it used to be. Mr. Thomas explained that the same person originally owned the property which was proposed to be annexed and the property which is .now Homestead Acres #2 subdivision. He put the cul-de-sac on the property proposed to be annexed probably to prevent narrow lots resulting in Homestead Acres #2 because of a cul-de-sac. Also, to give access to a church which was_plannedJor this property. Mr. Moorman stated that it is only an assumption that only 4 homes in this subdivision will have access to Edella. Freeman Road is an example of people using residential streets for traffic. All the traffic flow from the sub- division should go to Bursell. He has no objection to the annexation other than the traffic flow it will create on Edella. In response to a question from Mr. Nolte asking why there should be through- traffic from Bursell to Edella,vi.a the subdivision, Mr. Thomas stated that the improved economics of more lots was one reason. Also, the City and Fire Department does not like cul-de-sacs. In addition, creating a cul-de-sac to develop this property with access to Bursell would create two cul-de-sacs within the same area which would not be ,very far away from each other and it would create an unusual situation with cul-de-sacs back-to-back. page 4 z CAC Meeting of April 1, 1981 Upon development, the City requires that ohe=sixty-fourth (1/64) of an acre per lot be dedicated to a park or a fee provided in lieu of the dedication. Mr. Thomas stated that the developer plans to pay the park fee because the City Park Department has found that it does not have time to maintain numerous small parks. In addition, larger, more centrally located parks have proven to be more practical. The City needs to look at the overall picture and a small parcel for a park for each subdivision is not the answer to the need for good parks. A discussion followed on the pros and cons for alternative street designs that could be used for this property. Chairman Russell noted that the Citizens Advisory Committee would make a recommendation whether or not to annex the property tonight. Then the decision would be up to the Planning Commission and the City Council. Committee member Cordy noted that both Edella and Bursell Roads are 60-foot right-of-ways. Committee member Gebhard questioned if the proposed subdivision conforms to City standards. Chairman Russell asked if there were any proposed deed restrictions. Mr. Thomas stated that yes, there would be restrictions regarding setbacks, easements' and minimum home size, and other restrictions common to such sub- divisions. Also, Buribir and the streets within the subdivision will have curb and gutters. In response to a question from Committee member Gebhard, Administrator Kucera explained that the primary question before the Committee tonight was whether or not to recommend the property be annexed. Subdivision standards are normally reviewed by the Planning Commission. The CAC can review subdivision design if they wished to do so as a part of considering their annexation recommendation. A discussion followed whether or not the Committee should consider the subdivision design when it is considering the annexation. In response to a question, Ron Hough stated that the Citizens Advisory Committee is primarily responsible tonight to make a recommendation on the proposed annexation. They should decide if it meets typical annexation criteria. The annexation could be approved then the subdivision could be sold and then different designs developed. He thinks the proposal does merit annexation from planning viewpoint. It is sited on a collector street, has water and sewer available, and is a good size and shape for a subdivision. There is nothing opposing this annexation in the urban growth boundary and it conforms to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning requirements. Chairman Russell closed the public hearing. A brief discussion followed on the merits of the proposed annexation and the role of the Citizens Advisory Committee A motion was made by Committee member Cordy to approve the annexation because it agreed with L.C.D.C. 's rules and lies within the Urban Groirtb Boundary and testi- mony indicated that it was a good piece of property to annex. A second to the motion was made by Committee member Gebhard. All Committee members voted yes. page 5 — CAC Meeting of April 1, 1981 Chairman Russell stated that the Citizens Advisory Committee had approved the proposed annexation by Ted Friesen, agent. Chairman Russell adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:35 P.M. Grace, Russell, Chairman Citizens Advisory Committee 0 DK:ris (tape)