Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMay 1, 1979 Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers - May 1, 1979 Meeting called to order by Chairman McManama at 7:35 P.M. Roll call found members Emery, Hillyer, Nordby, Thelen, Waldron and Chairman McManama present. Absent were Hansen and Loveland with 1 vacancy. Others present were City Admin. Kucera, Building Official Ritchey and Secretary Stamper. Motion by Emery, second by Nordby. to approve the Minutes of the April-17-, -1979 meeting. All in favor, the motion carried. Correspondence: 1. Notice of Jacksonville-Central Point Citizens' Advisory Committee meeting set for May 9, 1979 at 7:30 at Scenic Jr. High School. 2. Public informational meeting on the Comprehensive Land Use plan in Jackson - County for Agricultural Lands scheduled for May 10th. 3. Letter from County Commissioner Carol Doty citing rising costs of housing and requests for smaller, lower cost lot size and increased density as a solu- tion. Letter read into record. New Business: First order of business was Re-Zone request for property located on J.C.mmmap ' page 37 2W 2BC (property annexation public hearing held by Planning Commission ion 3rd.) Tax Lots 600, 1100 and 140 from County zoning OSD-5 to City R-3 for multiple family zoning; by Daniel and Victor Kosmatka and Gerald and Esther Corcoran, applicants, known as the Cherry Street Annexation. Public Hear- ing rules of procedure read and public portion of the hearing opened by Chairman McManama. Dan. Kosmatka made a presentation and reasons of this proposal citing: 1. Does conform with Comp. Plan; 2. There is a public need for the change; to change from County Zoning to City Zoning; 3. Public need- see item #2; 4. No adverse impact on neighborhood, best utilization of available land and City services. Provides for housing needs of citizens and provides for planned growth. Question by Emery - "What portion of lots are involved in the R-3 request from the OSD-5 Zoning?" Answered by Vic Kosmatka - "One little piece is Zoned R-7". Explanation given of application information at time of annexation request background by City Administrator Kucera, to re-acquaint Planning Commissionmembers of what had transpired previously. Waldron feels the Planning Commission should act on)only that part of the prop- erties requested "verbally" and not necessarily as legally described with the application request..as the legal description was not correct. Mr. Tim Higinbotham, 4459 Old Stage Road spoke of the Community Bible Church concerns and no place for children to play except on church property. "Where is open space?" Member Finery stated that based on conversation with School District #6 Superintendent Jim Tacchini that studies show that the R-3 prop- ' erties have less potential for children than other residential zones. Discussion. Planning Commission Meeting City Hall Council Chambers May 1, 1979 - page 2 New Business (continued) Cherry Street Annexation Re-Zone Request Public Hearing: Motion made by Hillyer to continue the public hearing to allow applicants the opportunity to supply the Planning Commission with accurate maps and correct legal description of the involved .land and bring back before the Planning Com- mission meeting on May 15th. Motion was seconded by Nordby. By roll call-vote found all members in favor to continue the Public Hearing to May 15th. Carried. Next. order._of=:business Annexation application by CAS Properties, Inc. , 720 Bennet Street by Robert (Bud) Adler, President and applicant for properties known as 37 2W 11A Tax Lots 1700 and 1900 at east end of'Hopkins Road. . Appli- cant is also requesting a zone change and approval of a Planned Unit Development at the same time involving 16.6 acres with access of 2 streets; including in the _Comprehensive Plan. Presentation of annexation made by Mr. Adler for "The Village". Bill Katrinick, Builder, was also present. Concept of "Zero Lot Line with 50 x 100-foot' lot aizes with increased density is necessary to utilitize land to its best potential. Deed restrictions will eliminate "cooky-cutter loot". Exhibit C- Fasano Findings read into record by- applicant Adler. Homes will be in the $459000. range with FHA and other financing available. Mr. Andy Maurer, 30 Perrydale, Medford spoke on School impact stating that figures to be about 1/2 child per unit.' Vice-President Maurer (CAS) said he has made an a appointment with School District 6 Superintendent and should have the pertinent information by May 15th. Mr. Adler addressed the L.C.D.C. Goals, the Comprehensive Land Use Plan; need for this type of housing by the public, and suitability of the land at that location. Mr. Katrenick, the Builder, passed out 4 floor plan designs stating houses will be approximately 24 x 50 feet and built to all applicable codes and standards. Mr. Paul Harrison, 3737 Highway 238, Jacksonville, Marketing Director for CAS answered questions about fencing with the deed restrictions. Mr. Adler explained schedule for completion of The Village; in four phases- Phase I completion in 1979, Phase II and III in 1980 and Phase IV by end of 1980 by production building. Chairman McManama opened public portion of the hearing on the Annexation portion of the application and invitation given to anyone wishing to speak for or against the petition. Proponents were invited to speak. No one came forth. Opponents were invited to speak. Mr. Walter Drennan, 780 Pittview Avenue, Central Point, spoke and questioned depleting property values in the area; citing past problems with his property and difficulties in getting annexed to the City. Mrs. Barbara Marr Ritter, 794 Pittview, Central Point questioned an easement she stated that was on the east-west property line across her north boundary- for a proposed road! Mr. Lloyd Moffitt of Friar-Moffitt Surveying stated he as re- searched and surveyed the area and that nothing exists in the public records of any easement Mrs. Ritter referred to. Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1979 - page 3 New Business (continued) Annexation application for The. Village (continued) No one else wished to speak at .this time, the public portion of the hearing for annexation was closed. Public Hearing for the Zone Change from OSD County. zoning to City Zoning R-3 zoning was then opened by Chairman McManama with Proponents- and Opponents invited to speak. No one came forth to speak for there-zone petition. No one came forth to speak against the re-zone petition. The public portion of the hearing for rezoning was closed. Planning Commissionmembers had no questions of the applicants. Petition for development of a Planned Unit Development Public Hearing was opened. Planned Unit Development description given by CAS Properties' Presi- dent Bud Adler. Will make 97 individual lots with at least 4900 sq. ft. per lot and using the left lot line construction with 20 foot setbacks, 925 sq. feet of living spaces; less than $509000. value on the market and 8 different elevations. Financing has been arranged. Improvements will be the responsi- bility of the Developers and passed on to the buyers. No improvement districts will be formed. Cost of extension of Hopkins Road to be shared with Carol Al- leman, the developer of Suburban Subdivision. Mr. Adler wss' informed and^be agreed that the Planning Commission must have' the Preliminary Plat of The ' Village 'in-house' within 30 days of the annexation, the submission of the Development Plan within 30 days of annexation back to the Planning Commission also. Proponents were invited to speak. No one came forth. Planning Commission members asked several questions of the CAS personnel present. Discussion on 1 lot not buildable; perhaps to be used for off-street parking spaces; but to be left up to the Developers. Plat showed park area. Mr. Adler stated it will be up to the City to determine whether to keep it as a park or use,x it as a building site. Mr. Adler stated they will plant it and put trees in. an fence the area with fencing as required. Member Nordby questioned the 40' radius turn-around shown on the map for fire truck accessi- bility at end of street cul-de-sacs. Discussion.' It was agreed that streets will be determined separate from the P.U.D. petition. Mr. Harrison spoke on marketing area survey and potential buyers within our own area; "let time buyers". Question by Thelen as to the cost per square foot of construction. Mr. Harrisdnn.,did not have the figure. Member Waldron questioned keeping houses below the $50,000. figure. Mr. Adler pledged their intention to the lenders, City, etc. to keep the figure down. City Administrator Kucera questioned the medium income of the Central Point citizens who could purchase these homes. $15,000 to $18,000 wage bracket was ' the response given by Mr. Adler. No further questions were forthcoming from the audience nor the Planning Commission members. Planning Commission Meeting May 11 1979 page 4 New Business (continued) Planned Unit Development for The Village (continued) Opponents were invited to speak against the Planned Unit Development. No one came forth. Chairman McManama closed the public portion of the hearing. Member Hillyer questioned density of the R-1-8 zone and Planned Unit Development Ordinance page 12 Section 17.68.130 (copies of PUD Ordinance available for Members altho no incorporated into the Code book yet). City Administrator Kucera explained the R-3 typical lot w/ 4,000 sq. ft. living space for 1st unit and 19200 sq. ft. for subsequent units with total coverage of lot not to exceed 50%. Mr. Adler stated that their PUD plan will have 97 lots and building units versus the 180- building-unit-density allowance; as prescribed under the Comprehensive Plan! Discussion... To accept conditions as read and the Fasano Findings as presented but Developers have yet to document the school impact picture (see earlier state- ment above.). More discussion... on Approval of Concept of the Annexation petition, the Zone change petition and Planned Unit Development and Outline Development Plan. Once preliminary plan approval is granted by the Planning Commission the final approval cannot be denied stated Mr. Adler, and concurred with by City Admin. Kucera. Motion by Emery to accept the Proposal and Fasano Findings as submitted by applicants with changes as recommended by the Planning Commission and the R-3 Zoning on the north side (Hopkins Road) and R-1-8 Zoning on the southerly portion .of the involved properties for annexation. Motion was seconded by Nordby. By roll call vote, all in favor and carried, unanimously. Motion by Emery that Proponents have carried their burden of proof and that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council with a Resolution of Intent and approve the Outline Development Plan and that the City Council should go forward and act upon the petitioner's request for Annexation, Rezone, and Planned Unit Development on J.C. map page 37 2W 11A Tax Lots 1700 and 1900 as a total package, per the Planned Unit Development Ordinance per Municipal Code Section 17.68 as revised. Motion was seconded by Nordby. Discussion. Member Emery withdrew motion and Nordby withdrew second. New motion by Emery 'That Proponents have carried their burden of proof and that the Planning Commission recommends to the City Council with a Resolution of Intent and that the City Council should go forward and act upon Petitioner's request for Annexation, Rezoning and Planned Unit Development on J.C. map page 37 2W 11A for Tax Lots 1700 and 1900 as a total package per conditions of the Planned Unit Development Ordinance as revised under Municipal Code section 17.68 based upon Petitioner's Outline Development Plan and conditional upon size, location speci- fications for water, sewer and street improvements to be determined by the City Engineer and County recommendations, to include the following: 1. Frontage of Hopkins Road to be developed to City and County speci- fications for curb and gutter improvements. 2. A Fair share arrangement is to be determined for storm drainage and paying fair share of costs with adjourning developer." Motion was seconded by Nordby. More discussion ensued.: Mr. Adler requested reimbursement of share of development on improvements to Hopkins Road when future development occurs on west boundary of abutting property (C.W. Alleman?), or 10-year pay-back agreement. Planning Commission Meeting May 1, 1979 - page 5 New Business (continued) Discussion concerning west contacting line on Hopkins Road; pavement, curbs and gutters, storm drains, recommendation of local improvement district and whether to require curbs and gutters on both sides of Hopkins Road. By roll call vote, all in favor of the above motion by those present voting in the affirmative, to include curbs and gutters on both sides of Hopkins Road to City standards at .cost>of--Developer and requirement of sidewalks with- -in the Subdivision; with the exception of Member Waldron who voted "No". The motion carried with majority in favor. Next order of business was request for fence variance of Robert Korth, 750 Hemlock Avenue referred from the City Council. Staff report submitted by Bldg. Official Ritchey and based on attorney'a opinion that a variance can only be granted on "barbed wire" and, therefore, not otherwise validL City Admin. Kucera explained that other than the allowed fence variance. . . that a variance (interpretation of Code) must require a public hearing and a $65. filing fee before the public hearing could be held to allow "a Variance"? . Mr. Korth explained the trouble and delay he had already experienced and wished to go no further with the request. Motion by Hillyer to refund "the $5.00 filing fee for fence variance back to Mr. Korth. Motion was seconded by Nordby. All in favor, the motion carried. Minor Partition request for -Ray Sills, 490 West Pine Street on J.C. map page , 37- 2W lOBD for Tax Lot 4500. Applicant's representative was Virginia Hayes. Staff report presented- by Bldg. Official Ritchey recommending partitioning be allowed with Lot 2 to have a standard 70' wide frontage and Lot 1 a sub-standard lot having 47' frontage. Discussion on moving sewer line if required. Mrs. Hayes stated owner would not object. Discussion on variance front footage. Code cites "Hardship and best use of land in Section 16. Discussion. Motion by Waldron to approve the Minor Partition with variance on front footage of Lot 1 to-have 47' per. Staff recommendations. 1'Motion'seconded by-Emery. Roll 'call-found all members in favor. Carried. No further business, motion by Emery to adjourn. Motion seconded by Nordby. All in favor, carried. Meeting adjourned at 11:25 P.M.