Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAC Minutes - May 20, 2004city or Central Point Central Point Citizen's Advisory Committee Minutes May 20, 2004 6:30 P.M. Meeting Called to Order IL Rall CaB: Herb Farber, Chairman; Damian Idiart; Sam hddey, Sr.; Walter Moczygemba; Amanda Vaughn; Peg Wiedman; were present. Sam Inkely, Jc; was absent. Also in attendance was Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director; Dick Converse, RVCOG; and Lisa Morgan, Planning Secretary. III. Minutes The minutes from March 17, 2004, were unanimously approved. IV. Public appearances There were no public appearances V. Business A. CAC consideration or public opinion and to formulate a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council regarding an application for amending the City's Comprehensive and Zone Maps for an area located near the intersection of North Third Street and Scenic Road. The subject parcels are located on Jackson County Assessment Plata as 37 2W 03AB, Tax Lots 4800, 4900, 5000 and 5001. The comprehensive land use amendments would change from Residential Medium Density to Residential High Density; and change the zoning from R-2, Residenfial Two Family to R-3, Residential Multiple Family. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, began with explaining the application received by the city, and why this item is being presented again to the Citizen's Advisory Committee. The Conceptual Development Plan designed by Crandall•Arambula was discussed. Mr. Humphrey pointed out [hat 4 out of 6 of the original property owners involved in the master plan decided to file an application to initiate a quasi judicial hearing. Mr. Humphrey referred to questions he outlined on the board to help formulate a recommendation. These questions were: 1. Is there a need for more R-3 zoning? 2. Is [his an appropriate location for R-3 zoning? 3. What are the concems of the public? 4. What is the consensus of public opinion? Peg W iedman asked what specifically the changes were with this application vs. what was brought before them in previous meetings. Dick Converse, explained the commercial designation changes, and not all of [he parcels presented in prior meetings were part of the application tonight. Mr. Converse feels the applicants did a good job identifying the criteria in their findings offacr. Then explained the following: difference in density possible with the proposed zone change, the purpose of an R-3 zone, the need of additional R-3 zotting as identified in a chart showing actual development of property within existing R3 zoning, and the mazket assessment prepared by the Housing Authority. The market assessment actually referred [o [he two parcels owned by the Housing Authority, however would apply to the other two parcels included in the application. Sam Inkley, Sr., asked why the reports provided did not mention the development near a school. Mc Converse explained being near a school should be considered a positive factor. Mr. Humphrey identified other multiple family developments neaz schools throughout [he city. Peg Wiedman asked if developed to an R-3 density, what impacts would this have on the schools and additional traffic, etc. Mr. Humphrey said the impact fees collected by the city does not support [he schools. Schools receive their funding through bonding and property taxes. The city does work with the school district in anticipating future growth. North Third Street has a collector street classification. North Tenth Street and Scenic are both classified as minor arterials. Chairman Farber opened the public portion of the meeting. Citizen # 1: Expressed concern for the safety of the cMldren near such a bad intersection of the city. Other concerns were fears that low income housing would lower property values of existing homes, with an increase in crime and drugs. Citizen #2: concems with increased traffic near what is known as the worst intersection in the city. Feels that intersection of Upton Road, Scenic, North Third and North Tenth should be fixed prior to development. He mentioned communications with Chief Sweeney of Central Point Police Departrnen[. He said [hat [here aze a lot of police dispatches neaz Scenic Middle School and Willow Glen Apartments. Doesn't feel there is a need for R-3 zoning, if [here was, the developers would have built the other R-3 zoning areas as zoned, rather than single family residences. Citizen #3: Traffic should be addressed prior to development. Wants clarification on what affordable housing is. She stated that affordable homes in her neighborhood is $160,000 - $170,000. Doesn't feel this is the right location for R-3 zoning. Citizen #4: Feels that higher density would aggravate traffic problems. R-3 zoning is out of character in this neighborhood. Wants to look at the rationale of the present R-2 zoning. Citizen # 5: Stated that his property was a keystone in the Conceptual Development Plan of this area. He chose not to participate in this application because of the tnne agenda and to observe the outcome of the public reaction. He fully intends to put in for a zone change of his property at a later date. There were more traffic questions, and whether or not [he increase in traffic with this recommended zone change was considered in the Conceptual Development Plan. Since the Crandall-Arambula Conceptual Development Plan was funded in part by Oregon Department of Transportation, traffic was looked at, thus resulting in the street Circulation Plan. Andy McBee, a property owner included in this application, stated that he had no problem working with the City in regazds to design, street improvements, etc. He feels that being near a school is a bonus. There were questions directed [o Mr. McBee asking why couldn't he develop his property with the current R-2 zoning, and if he planned [o develop [o [he fullest allowable density of R-3 if approved. He said i[ would be developed close to the maximum density, but not quite. Further questions were how Mr. McBee intends to keep up maintenance on his property, and whether or not he felt responsible for protecting" surrounding neighbors, etc. Mr. McBee answered of course he intends to keep up [he property. It is his best interest to maintain the property to keep property value up in the event he ever wanted to sell it in the future. He further explained that he has been a landlord in the valley for a long time, and does his best to select good tenants. If he ever received word that any of his tenants were involved with drugs, etc. that they would not stay in his development. Citizen #6: Doesn't know what can be done to correct the intersection of Up[an Road , Scenic Road, North Third and North Tenth Streets. Feels that changing the zoning [o R- 3would leave the R-I-8 property owners high and dry. Does not want the zone change. Betty McRoberts of the Housing Authority of Jackson County, explained that she is a resident of Central Point. She bought the subject property after being told by city staff that there was going [o be a zone change, and paid a multiple family price for the land. Mrs. McRoberts stated that she has had meetings with School District #6 regarding the impact on the schools. Mrs. McRoberts discussed her other developments throughout the County and said that the Housing Authority has less than a 5% vacancy, though most are 3%. As far as her intentions for designs, she favors townhouses with the pazking oriented in the center. Mr. Humphrey, Community Development Director; explained the process of prioritizing street improvements within the city. Sometimes, those priorities change depending on the immediate demand. The intersection of Upton Road, Scenic Road, North Third and North Tenth Streets are identified in the Transportation System Plan for improvement. Alice Kottke, property owner included in application, said her house is right in the middle of her property, and they operate their plumbing business there as well. (A legal non- conforming use) No one else would be able to find the property useful if they sold i[. It would not be a permissible use for new owners. She feels [he vacant land is an eyesore with a burned down house, weeds higher than your head, and if someone is willing to make improvements it is a plus to the city. There were questions about whether the HAJC provides HUD housing, and if the zone change and comprehensive plan amendment went through when they would star[ developing. Mrs. McRoberts stated they are not HUD. The development schedule would depend on funding. The deadline to apply for funding is in August of every yeaz, however they cannot submit an application for funding unless the zorung is changed. The source of funding is very competitive, and she is doubtful that they will make the deadline for this August. )n the event the zoning is changed they aze looking at next August to apply for funding, and if by some miracle they receive funding with their first submission, they are looking at beginning development in spring 2006. There were questions about what constitutes an appropriate location for R-3 zoning. Mr. Converse of RVCOG, read from the Statewide Planning Goals and all the elements needed to make it a good location. Some of these items included close proximity to public transportation, schools, and other public services. Other questions were about the City's obligation [o the Slate to maintain an inventory of mixed use lands and if there are penalties such as not receiving funding from the State for certain improvements. Mr. Humphrey, Community Development Director, explained that when the city looks at expanding it's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the state will look at the city's inventoried land and how it was developed. It may have an effect on a request to expand the UGB, however there aze not "financial penalties" imposed. Further discussions were about ensuring a quality development. Mr. Humphrey explained that with aSub-Master Plan it could be done. With this application, that would have to be accomplished through the Si[e Plan review process with conditions of approval. Chairman Farber asked if everyone was ready to make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. ROLL CALL: Damian Idiart, yes; Walter Moczygemba, yes, with special attention given to the wncems of [he citizens; Sam Inkley, Sr, no; Peg Wiedman, no; Amanda Vaugh, yes; Herb Farber, yes with conditions addressing traffic, mobility and attention to citizen concerns. VI. Miscellaneous There were no miscellaneous items. VII. Adjournment The committee adjourned at approximately 8:40 P.M.