Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 21, 1978 Planning Commission Meeting February 21 , 1978 7 : 30 P .M. The Planning Commission meeting was called to order by Chairman Don Bs Roll call found the following Commissioners present : Emery , Halley, Hillyer, Loveland , Mann , MCManama, Waldron and Banks . Also present were City Admin. Dave Kucera, Bldg . Inspector R . J . Ritchey , Secre- tary R. Stamper and many interested citizens. (Mann arrived at 7 : 35 P .M. ) Absent was Sue Messmer . The Minutes of the February 7th meeting were presented for approval , by roll call vote, all in favor, motion was carried . Public Appearances Conditional use request for added use of professional building at 990 South Front Street by Jim Freeman , applicant : 2nd Conditional Use at 1-Location? Mr. Freeman was recognized and came forth and stated his wife wanted to open an office space area for National Products Company , suppliers of copier paper and toner by just using a desk and phone at that location. The business would be conducted over the phone to customers for shipment out of the Coos Bay area, and would not involve any trafficking . (Mr. Freeman had appeared and was granted a conditional use for real estate office in the LC—LI zone 2/07/78 meeting ) . A letter of request was passed around to Commissionmembers . After discussion , City Administrator Kucera reported he had been unable to get a legal opinion from City Attorney ' s office (as he was out of town ) for the dual use building request without a second conditional use application submitted. Chairman Banks requested a legal opinion from the City Attorney by the March 7th Planning Commission meeting . This matter tabled until then . Old Business Continuation of Public Hearing for Snow Annexation — Richard Stark, attorney , representing Dr . Snow interests was invited to proceed. He presented Exhibits #5, a map of the area to be annexed, and Exhibit #9 , a soil map supplied by U.S .D. A . These exhibits were given to the Commissioners . Items discussed were : 1 . Phase development concept would be spread out, not all at once . This land in the County would be large enough to develop for 4, 723 people in a 2 to 3 year period in a properly planned manner. 2 . Annexation of 49 acres in the parcel . 3. Soil classification by Jackson County report of 1964 shows the land to contain Class 3 Irrigated and non—irrigated portion in a Class 4. Soil report was entered into the Proceedings business of the Commission. Item 4 Farmland and drainage was non—maintained with flooding via Jackson Creek with low land resulting in ponding and sub—surface drainage. Mr. Stark reported on the question of capacity of traffic on Taylor Road studies and per communication from Jackson County Public Works Supt . Robert Carstensen — the February 21 , 1978 road is physically able to handle the proposed traffic . Item 6 . A Annexation would not involve a fast development as the property would be developed as water facilities were available with the Higinbotham Dairy asking for a buffer zone. Proponent Ron Young reported that the Mormon Church reports their proposal of development of the Thompson property of 8 acres to build a district church . Water developments would be worked out with all involved. He felt the Bishop of the Church would be available to appear later. Everett Faber a 50 year resident in the City stated he had watched our City grow from 600 people to now 6 , 000 . The City should continue in their search of autonomy from "big brother" , a last bastian of freedom existing via the Planning Commission to City Council route to do the best you can for all citizens . Don Faber seconded his brother ' s words and stated the County Court shouldn ' t determine how we should grow, the jurisdiction should not be their responsibilities . Feels that Higinbotham Dairy and the City can get along with careful attention ;recommend the City should have jurisdiction of land up to Gold Ray Dam with water and sewer avail- ability annexed to the City via Urban Growth Boundary . Marion Hull , the next proponent to speak , reported that he is land- locked on Pine Street with 16 ' easement to his 9 acres but not farm— 0 land . Water doesn ' t help raising a crop and he is taking a beating in taxes . He would like to annex with Dr . Snow ' s land for right—of—way purposes . Opponents were next invited to speak — Attorney Manville Heisel representing Higinbotham Farms produced an exhibit from Jackson County Planning & Dev. prepared by Kurt Weaver with 1 . Soil report of 1964 stating 2 . Adverse impact on proposed development for urban density . 3. L .C . D.C . rule of annexation without urban growth boundary in report 2 weeks prior. 4. Must abide by Senate Bill 100 and the right to insist on being heard . 5. City must give County the opportunity to comment, etc . , urban use adoption has been proven land availability within urban growth boundary as adopted with prior approval of Jackson County . Opponent Joan West stated the proposed annexation should not be allowed ; she likes it the way it is at present . Commission Member Paul Emery inquired how far away did she live from the proposed annexation . She replied "about 12 blocks" . Opponent Richard Gilman was next speaker . As the owner of a dairy near a residential area here in Central Point he produced pictures to illustrate his objections ; 600 bales of straw ruined by children playing in barn , barn boards removed, equipment destroyed, irrigation pipes vandalized. He felt Mr . Higinbotham would be plagued with similar problems with a subdivision development in the near proximity to his dairy. February 21 , 1978 Next opponent was a Pam Monroe, a resident of 25 ' from proposed annexa- tion . She stated that traffic was already bad on Taylor Road with 4 accidents occurring in her area in the past year . Drainage problem in winter with flooding in the area caused loss from ruined hay and mud in barns . She also felt, that vandalism would occur because of closeness , Opponent Elmer Frick — 24—year resident lives 1/4 mile from proposed annexation near Grant Road stated 1 . 2 accidents .had occurred in his yard, 2 . Too close to barn and farmland and would be hazardous and jeopardize his operation . 3. Too close to the Dairy, make congestion in the traffic on the Taylor Road—Grant Road intersection . No one wishing to speak at this time, City Administrator Dave Kucera presented Exhibits into the record ; 1 . Manville Heisel document from City dated 1/17/78 , 2 . B . C . V . S . A . letter to levy assessment on West— side trunk system, etc . by Richard Miller, 3. Jackson County letter stated "cannot support the annexation" . (refer to letter) dated January 31 , 1978 and calling out 7 reasons and signed by Commissioner Tam Moore, 4. Citizens for Action Committee Jan McGinnis memo dated 2/17/78 . . (refer .to memo and minutes) Proponents in Rebuttal —, Atty . Dick Stark produced his summary in support of the Snow Annexation : Map (Exhibit #19) submitted ; brown color is developed area, the land is needed and agricultural land is only land available but the City must plan Now; land is poor for agriculture and with water and sewer handy , it is the logical way to go through annexation . Blue colored area is Marion Hull property . Commissioner Waldron asked of difference of soil type reports — State and County . . . which is correct? How was the reports done and who makes the determination of which is the right authority? Commission member Emery asked what is density of southwest portion pro- perties ; 1 to 2 acres per lot. The answer supplied by Commissioner Waldron said "average" . Don Faber inquired where is the, land to, be annexed for City future use. County can ' t tell us who can and who can ' t be annexed ! Mr. Faber stated his opinion is that Manville Heisel is appearing on both sides . Attorney Heisel said he does not represent B .C . V .S . A . now, does represent Mr. Higinbotham and is going by L .C .D.C . rules and the City can ' t annex until the Urban Growth Boundaries are adopted, and the situation won ' t be improved by the annexation of the Snow property ! Bill Saxbury asked to be recognized and reported he has 10 acres and abuts Mrs. West' s property . He has 6 acres under irrigation in alfalpha but not even paying the taxes . Flooding problems have been caused by drainage ditches not being taken care of. He wants to belong to Dr. Snow ' s annexation . Has no plans to sub—divide even if annexed . City ' s growth must go to the north for farmland as no other direction is suitable . February 21 , 1978 A Several more queries were answered by those in attendance . Public Hearing portion was closed. Planning Commission discussion followed : 1. Waldron — Put back into the hand of the people the decision to do for themselves in determining expansion and growth for future, in spite of County & State government. 2 . Commissioner Emery. — City as a whole has had a decent growth pattern in .past 10-11 years and on his personal knowledge and we should be able to continue without dictation by State Govt. We should have a chance to make our own mistakes . 3. Dick Halley spoke for the record . . . State Governing Body will not tell him how he must vote; he will make his own decision . 4. Commissioner Hillyer — Law is a Law and we are a law—abiding Country . L . C .D .C . by vote of people has enacted law to determine how to handle our lands and until the law is changed, she must go along with upholding the law of the State and as a judicial body , the Planning Commission must go along with the laws as written until they are changed. Paul Emery inquired what happened to individual freedom in ownership of land? Lloyd Mann recommending to "Un—land—lock" 10 acres of Hull ' s property that wasn ' t being used for agricultural purposes and can ' t be used in its present state. Commissioner McManama feels as statement 4 by Commissioner Hillyer (above) . Commissioner Waldron stated we must make the move to put Government back into the "People ' s hands and must listen to the people first . Chairman Don Banks referred to rules as outlined in L .C .D.C . document 0 . dated 2/17/78 and this was read into the record (refer to report) . Question by Lloyd Mann — who approved our Urban Growth Plan of 1975? Jean Hillyer answered that the current committee is not the same as first started. It was composed of 2 separate groups replied Ron Young . Chairman Banks next read a document prepared by City Attorney Carter on Rules of Annexation Procedures dated 12/16/78 (refer to report) . Commissioner Hillyer said these first committee people in CAC were not the same people who are meeting at the present time on Urban Growth and the Plan adopted by the City in 1976. Report was read aloud and Exception was taken to item 3 page 2 as being not possible to apply now ; for future being . Motion was made by Commissioner Emery to have Findings submitted by each side, seconded by Commission member Halley . Roll call vote : Emery—yes , Hillyer—no ; Mann—yes , McManama—no ; Waldron— yes ; Loveland—yes ; Halley—yes ; Banks—yes . The Ayes were in majority . Findings are to be submitted prior to the next Planning Committee meeting of March 7 , 1978 for evaluation by the Planning Commission in their recommendation to the City Council whether or not Snow Property is annexed. After a short recess, the meeting continued. New Business ' Bldg . Inspector R . J . Ritchey presented a 1068 review for proposed duplex construction for 123 North Second Street , applicants Ernest & Patricia aHimmelman . As the applicants were not present, no action was taken. February 21 , 1978 Next Mr . Ritchey presented a proposed 4-plex Preliminary Plat review for parts of Lots 6 & 7 of Block 23 of Original Town for construction by Terry NcArdle; applicant known as Design Trends . Mr . Pat Henderson , representative for Design Trends spoke. and produced a wood model of the complex to be constructed , asking for 518 square feet variance from that required by Code 17 , 81 .040 for lot construction density . Model scale contained a 1 bedroom unit, a 2 bedroom unit a 3 bedroom unit and a studio-type apartment . Request that the Planning Commission grant a variance for the lack of 518 square feet or change the ordinance to accommodate such a change. After discussion and questions asked by Commissionmembers , it was the recommendation by this 'body that the Planning Commission has extreme doubts if the City Council would go along with such a variance. Mr . Henderson said he would modify his plans and come again to the Commission . for an acceptable version of apartments for the lot size density requirements . Next order of business was use of gasoline station pumps while operating an ice cream parlor at the Arco Station at 4th and Pine Streets for approximately 1 year . Bldg . Inspector Ritchey said that Fire Chief Penicook stated there were apparently no laws against this and that nothing had been received from the Board of Health. Commission member Lloyd Mann inquired about truck parking on city streets and specifically about a truck at 750 Ash Street. Inquiry will be made through Police Department . Discussion of policy of the Planning Commission to adopt as .matter of policy any and all applicants must have complete plans and the applicant be present to answer any 'questions when the order of business is on the agenda, or the item will be tabled. Motion made by Paul Emery se- conded by Jean Hillyer, roll call vote, and the vote was unanimous . Next item for' discussion was question of prior zoning requests approved and then nothing being done when annexed property has come into the City boundary from an RF zoning to a Conditional Use ; an R-3. Discussion led by Commissioner Halley, referring to Weather ' s property off Hopkins Road, and no extension as provided for by Code requested. Also mentioned was the proposed skating rink 'of approx . 12 or 2 yrs . ago on Highway 99 north of the PPL sub-station; this property was zoned as C-1 when it was annexed. Bldg. Inspector Ritchey was asked to check into the Kilby property on Hopkins Road also . The Planning Commission requests a re- write of the ordinance as applicable to City Attorney Carter for clarification if the property reverts bapk to its original use or stays in as R-3. More discussion . Commissionmember Emery made the motion to amend City Ordinance to so state that when property comes into the City on a Conditional Use permit was granted other than the R-1-8 zoning that after elapsed time of 1 year or an extension granted for the use of the property as its appli- cation was approved, that the property reverts to a zoning of R-1-8 and the Conditional Use request is no longer valid. Motion seconded by Commissioner Halley and carried unanimously . February 21 , 1978 Chairman Don Banks presented a form request from Jackson County Planning Department of approval or objection report on property located on Gibbon Road for J.C . Planning Department hearing of March 16th ; acreage involves 5 acres . After discussion , it was the feeling of this body that the Planning Commission did not wish to submit any comments in the matter as it is not in accordance with the County ' s Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission goes on record as being in opposition to the request . A letter will be sent with the form back to Jackson County Planning Department. No further business at this time, motion was made by Commissioner McManama to close this meeting , seconded by Commissioner Emery , all in favor , motion carried . Meeting adjourned at 10:05 P . M. Respectfully submitted, Spot Stamper Secretary 23bruary 1978 TO: Mayor Jack Snook and City Council. FROM: Don Banks, Planning Commission Chairman SUBJECT: Planning Commission Report of February 21, 1978 A. Conditional Use Request - 990 South Front Street by Jim Freeman, applicant Dr. Lemley's professional building - Real estate office. Request to Plann- ing Commission if another Conditional Use permit is needed if wife conducts another type of business in the LC-LI Zoned strip. City Administrator had no opportunity to get legal opinion for inquiry of"a second conditional use for a second type of business at one location." Legal opinion requested by March 7th. B. Snow Annexation Attorney R. Stark presented proponents side and 2 Exhibits, #5 & #9 for annexation of 49 acres; questions on classes of soils were in controversy. 4 Proponents added their input requesting annexation be allowed. Opponents led by Atty. M. Heisel representing Higinbotham Farms presented Jackson County Exhibit and soil report of 1964... Ojected to annexation without Urban Growth Boundaries determined and adopted; citing L.C.D.C. rules of annexation. 4 Opponents spoke of closeness of dairy to a proposed subdivision if annexed; trespassing on diary property, vandallism, wanton destruction of hay; traffic accidents can occur; irrigation pipes and other equipment destroyed - as Gilman Dairy rep. informed the Group. After rebuttals by both sides the hearing was closed and decision of the Planning Commission that both legal representatives were asked to submit additional findings of their opinions and documents to the City Administrator's office before the March 7th Planning Commission meeting for the Planning Commission evaluation and recommendation to City Council, together with the night's testimony,heard. Rules prepared by City Attorney for Annexation proceedings acknowledged and will be followed for the Findings; L.C.D.C. is also on record with guideline rules re: "City Annexations", etc. Feb. 17th document. C. Preliminary Review by R.J. Ritchey for Design Trends, Pat Henderson, applicant for 4-plex const. on Cedar Street, and variance request of 518 sq. .feet more than allowed; ,11ppiicant wds 'informed that the Planning Commission could not recommend a variance of that magnitude to the City Council. D. 1068 Plan Review for 123 No. 2nd Street - Patricia Himmelman, applicant for Tri-Plex. Applicant not present and no landscaping plans submitted. Matter tabled for future business and until complete plans are available with applicant present to discuss questions if necessary. E. Fire Department has no ' ojection on ice cream parlor and gas station pumps at the corner of 4th & Pine at the Arco Station; reporting that the Board of Health has NIE, OCKIIIir not responded. F. Planning Commission requested re-write of ordinance to City Attorney about Conditional Use on property coming into City then no action being done for a long period of time and no extension asked for., for clarification that property reverts back to its original use, i.e., I. eather s property came in as R-3. page 2 of 2 - Planning Commission Report of February 21, 1978 F. Continued Wilhite property on U.S. 99 came in as C-1 for skating rink and R.J. was asked to check into the Kilby property on Hopkins Road. G. Zone Change application- Jackson County inquiry regarding 5 acres on Gibbon Road and if the City has any comments or objections to be submitted prior to hearing date on March 16th. Planning Commission decided not to submit any comments based on Urban Growth Boundary conflicts with Jackson County.