Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 3, 1996CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 3, 1996 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Conmiission Resolution No. 364 L MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Joluuon, and Valerie Rapp III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MIlViJTES i - 5 A. Review and approval of August 20, 1996 Planning Coirunission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSBVESS 6 - 33 A. Public Hearing -Continued review and determination regarding an Application for a Planned Unit Development, and recommendation regarding Comprehensive Plan & Zone Text Amendment for property located on Hwy 99 north of Crater High School to be known as Miller Estates (372W3B TL 500 & 600) 34 B. Public Hearing -Review and determination regarding Conditional Use Permit for Rainbows End Preschool & Day Care located at 511 South 4th (372W11BC TL 7900 (Applicant: Richard & Debbie Wooton) (continued to a later date) 35 - 42 C. Public Hearing -Review and determination regarding a Variance Application for property located in the general vicinity of Beall Lane and Heather Lane (372W11D TL 15400) (Applicant: Bill Charlie) 43 - 55 D. Review and recommendation regarding Zone Map Amendment for property located at 3524 Grant Road (372Wi0C TL 4800, 4801, 4803 & 4804) (Applicant: Wayne Christian for Mendolia) 56 - 64 E. Review and determination of Application for Change of Non-Conforming Use Designation for property located at 532 N. Front Street (372W03DB TL 400), also known as Central Point Auto Wrecking (Applicant: A.J. McCleary) 65 - 75 F. Review and recommendation regarding Withdrawal of Several Parcels of Land from Jackson County Fire Protection District No. 3 VH. MISCELLANEOUS VHI. ADJOURNMENT a CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 I. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P. M. II. ROLL CALL: Those present were: Chuck Piland, Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson, Valerie Rapp. Angela Curtis left the meeting at 8:45 .m. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence IV. Commissidner Dunlap moved to approve the August 6, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes as written. Commissioner Rapp seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Curtis, yes, Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, .. Yes; Rapp, Yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There vvere no public appearances VI. BUSINESS A. PP ~bl~g Review and "determination regarding an A~nlication for Planned Unit DevelonmPnt acid recommendation regarding ComrZ°hnncivn plan & on Text Amendment for oro~erty located on ~^~^iy A9' north of Crater High School to bg known as Miller Estates 1472W36 TL 500 & 6001 Chairman Piland opened the public hearing. There was no ex-parte communications or conflict of interest. Jim Bennett, Planning Director, Yeviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Mike Thornton, City Engineer, reviewed the Public Works Department Staff Report. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 20, 1996 -Page Two Commissioner Gilkey asked if turn lanes would be required on Highway 99 at the entrance? Mike Thornton stated that John Martin, from ODOT is looking at this now to determine what. will be required.. Mike LaNier, Consulting Engineer, 131 N. Bartlett, Medford, agent for the applicant came forward on behalf of the application and reviewed the findings of fact. Billy Hogue, 137 Thomas Court, Central Point, Applicant came forward on behalf of the application. Doug McMahan, 1062 E. Jackson, Medford, agent for the applicant came forward on behalf of the application. Miriam Miller, P.O. Box 3713, Central Point, owner of the. property, came forward on behalf of the application. The following is a list, in order, of those that came forward in opposition to the application. A written, signed petition and individual statements were presented. Robert Nalia, 2085 Lenora Lane, Central Point. Howard Talley; 1855 Nancy St., Central Point, Bill Walton, 318 So. 2nd Street, Central Point Chairman Piland declared a recess at 8:42 p.m. and called the meeting back to order at 8:47 p.m. James L. Knox, 1790 Nancy Avenue, Central Point Debra Settell, 1845 Nancy, Central Point Vi Singler, 1797 Mary's Way, CentralPoint Christina Hill, 1886 Mary's Way, Central Point Charlotte Leonard, 1.845 Nancy... Ave., Central Point Randy Settell, 1845 Mary's Way, Central Point Dave Edwards, 1834 Mary's Way, Central Point Steve Murphy, 1814 Mary's Way, Central Point Scott Higginbotham, 1842 Mary's Way, Central Point Jeanne Ebert, 1827 Mary's Way, Central Point F', „ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 -Page Three Mike LaNier, Agent for the applicant, came forward to answer some of the stated concerns. Commissioher Jdhnson moved to continue the Public Hearing past 10:00 p. m. Commissioner Dunlap seconded the motion. All said "aye" and motion passed. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the Public Hearing until September 3, 1996. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rapp. ROLL CALL VOTE: Curtis, absent; Dunlap,: yes; Fish, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes. Motion passed. Public Hearing will be continued until September 3, 1996. B. Public Hearing Review and determination regarding Site Plan Conditional l1sP Permit and Zone Variance for r~operty located at 123 j`' 9nll Straat 1372W3DD TL 7200) Chairmah Piland opened the Publio Hearing: There was no ex-parte communication, Commissioner Rapp and Commissioner Fish declared conflict of interest ahd took their seats in the audience. Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Mike Thornton reviewed the Public Works Department Staff Report. There was discussion concerning requirements to pave the alley. Valerie Rapp, 487 Creekside Circle, Central Point, came forward in opposition to the`application. She owns adjoining rental property and stated that parking is a problem in the area with seniors parking on the street and on her property. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve Resolution No. 363 for approval of the Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Zone `r el CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES ~; AUGUST 20, 1996 -Page Four Variance for property located at 123 N. Second Street (372W3DD TL 7200) with a request that the senior citizens address the parking problem:and let members know where they are allowed to park. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. .ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap, yes; Fish, abstain; Gilkey, yes.;. Johnson, yes; Rapp, abstain. Motion Passed. C. i~vievv and Recommendation regardingSomnrehensive Plan & Zone Text Amendment for r~operty located on Hwy 99 next to OSP Site commonly known as the Labor Temple (372W3B Tax Lots 1500 & 15031 (Aonlicant• Labor Temple Association) Jim Bennett review the Planning Department Staff Report. Commissioner Fish moved to .recommend approval of Comprehensive Plan & Zone Text Amendment for property located on Hwy 99 next to OSP Site, commonly known as the Labor Temple (372W3B Tax Lots 1500 & 1503) (Applicant: Labor Temple Association) including all conditions in the Staff Report, Commissioner Gilkey seconded the - motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap,. yes; Fish, yes;: Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes. Motion passed. D. Review and recommendation regarding~omnrehensive Plan & Zone Map Amendment for orooerty located in the vicinity of Crater Hiah School south of OSP Site on Hwy 99 (372W3B Tax Lots 1501. 1502, & 1504-N) Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. - Commissioner Fish moved to recommend .approval, of Comprehensive Plan and. Zone Text Amendment for property located in the vicinity of Crater High School south of OSP Site on Hwy 99 (372W3B Tax Lots 1501, 1502, & 1504-N) including all conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Rapp seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes. Motion passed. E. Review and recommendation re~arding_Zone Text Amendment Amending CPMC 17 48 040 Pertaining~o Allowable Conditional Uses in the M 1 Industrial District (Rail & Trucking Distribution Facilities) ~h CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 20, 1996 -Page Five Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Commissioner Johnson moved to recommend approval of the Zone Text Amendment Amending CPMC 17.48.040 Pertaining to Allowable Conditional Uses in the M-1 Industrial District (Rail & Trucking Distribution Facilities) including conditions in the Staff Report. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap, no; Fish, yes; Gilkey,: yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, no. Motion carried. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Fish discussed a current zoning problem where there are residences in a commercial zone. If a house is destroyed they cannot rebuild residential but can only build commercial. These homes cannot get financing or a mortgage if they sell. They cannot resell the homes unless ,, they guarantee the paper. .This needs to be discussed and modifications made. Jim Bennett discussed items on future agendas.. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion that a letter be written. to City Council to recommend purchase of the property behind the Senior Center for parking. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Dunlap seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ~3 PLANNING DL-PARTMENT MGMORAND[JM HEAKING DATE: September 3, 1996 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Continued Review of Comprehensive Plan/Zone Map Amendment from Low Density Residential to Medium' Density Residential and from R-1-6, Residential Single-Family (6,000 sq. ft.) to R-2, Residential Two-Family (37 2W 03B Tax Lot 500); Continued Public Hearing on Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Development Pian for a Planned Unit Development, Miller Estates, an 80-Lot Manufactured Home Subdivision (37 2W 03B Tax Lots'S00 & 600) - Summary At the regular meeting of August 20, 1996, the Planning Commission received the staff report and accepted public testimony regarding a proposal to amend the Comprehensive Plan and the Zone Map to designate approximately 10.11 acres located on the east side of N. Pacific Hwy. as Medium Density Residential/R-2, Residential Two:-Family and to approve a Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Urut Development on 13.99 acres for an 80-lot manufactured home subdivision, Miller Estates. In order to allow time for the Planning Commission to review all of the written and oral public testimony and for the applicant to prepare a rebuttal to the same, the Planning Commission moved to continue its review of the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Amendments and the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit and Preliminary Development Plan to the regular meeting of September 3, 1996.. The Planning Commission left the public hearing open for further public testimony. Copies of the written public testimony submitted at the August 20, 1996 meeting are attached for the Commission's review along with a list of residents who signed a petition in opposition to the project. A. Written Public Testimony B. List of Petitioners F ,. ~ 1 L rrcn2 ~~ PETITION These signatures are of the people who live in the vicinity of the parcel legally described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as 37S 2W 038 Tax Lots 500 & 600 who DO NOT want the application for comprehensive plan and zone map amendment (from R-1-6 to R-2) and conditional use permitfor a planned unit development to be approved. STATEMENTS AND COMMENTS: 1) THE PARCEL IN QUESTION IS ZONED R-1-6. WE DO NOT WANT THAT CHANGED. WHEN MAKING THE DECISION TO PURCHASE OUR HOMES IN THE GREEN GLEN SUBDIVISION, WE PLACED GREAT VALUE ON KNOWING THAT ANY FUTURE HOUSING SHARING MARY'S WAY AND'NANCY AVENUE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH: THE RULES AND REGULATIONS DEFINED BY ZONE CLASSIFICATION R-1-6. WE TRUSTED THAT IT WAS A WELL THOUGHT OUT DECISION THAT WOULD BE HONORED. IT REMAINS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO US THAT THIS PARCEL REMAINS ZONED R-1-6. WE DO NOT WANT THAT CHANGED! 2) WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE ADVERSE EFFECT A ZONE CHANGE TO R-2 WOULD HAVE ON OUR PROPERTY VALUES. FOR TEN YEARS WE HAVE HAD THE REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT WHEN THE GREEN GLEN SUBDIVISION WAS EXTENDED, IT WOULD BE DONE SO UNDER THE R-i-6 ZONE GUIDELINES THAT WERE SET IN PLACE. QUESTIONS WHO IS ON THE CITIZEN COMMITI'EE7 HOW WILL THE ADDITIONAL NUMBER OF STUDENTS IMPACT OUR SCHOOLS? HAS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BEEN ASKED FOR A REPORT? IS THERE ANY GUARANI`EE THAT TI-IESE UNITS CANNOT BE PURCHASED BY INVESTORS TO BE OFFERED AS RENTALS? r; COSTS CAN BE EXI'ECTL'll "1'O PAY E}~'T12AORDINAIZY FLOOll INSURANCE PREMIUMS? WIIAT IS THE FOI2MTJLA FOR ARRIVING AT "NET MIGRATION'? HOW IS TIlE GROWTH RATE FIGURED? IS THERE ADEQUATE PROVISION FOR PARI{ING? I-IAS A REPORT AND OR D ~ ~ RMINATION FROM THE E.P.A. BEEN REQUESTED? THIS APPEARS TO BE A WETLAND IN A FLOOD PLANE. SEEING AS HOW 2 OF THE 3 ROADS FOR TICS FII2.ST PHASE GO THROUGH THE GREEN GLENN SUBDIVISION, WIiAT IS GOING TO BE DONE TO REPAIl2 AND MAINTAIN THEM. TIRE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE REAL FINANCIAL AND FUNCTIONAL IMPACT ON THE WATER, SEWER AND POWER SYSTEMS. WHAT ARE TIC "AREAS OF CONCERN' REGARDING STORM DRAINAGE? REGARDING THE PAYMENTS INTO THE PARK FUND ------HOW MUCH? WHO RECEIVES PT? WHERE DOES IT GO? 'TI-IE COST OF EXTENTION'OF THESE SERVICES TO THE TAXPAYER IS MINIMAL." 'DEFINE MINIMAL IN $$$$$$$$. DOES THE. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT WANT MORE PEOPLE TO MOVE HERE? IF SO, WHY? WHAT ISTf-IE VISION, THE LONG RANGE PLANT HOW IS TT THAT MANUFACTURED' HOMES ARE CONSIDERED CONSISTENT W1IT-i THE EXISTING CUSTOM HOMES ON ®9000 S/F LOTS? HAVE YOU PUT A DOLLAR AMOUNT ON THE DEPRECIATION OF THE'' PROPERTIES IN THE GREEN GLEN SUBDIVISION THAT WILL OCCUR IF THIS 7.oNE CHANGE IS APPROVED? - THE TRAFFIC REPORTS ARE NOT CONVINCING. WHAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO REMAIN 7.oNED R-1? WE BELIEVE THAT YOU GOT IT RIGHT THE FII2ST TIME? HOW DOES THE APPEAL PROCESS WORK? IF THIS APPLICATION IS APPROVED, IS THE APPLICANT LOCKED INTO THE PROPOSED P.U.D.? WE WOULD LII{E TO GO ON RECORD WITH THE FOLLOWING: WE OBJECT TO"THE TIME LIMITATION FOR GENERATING OUR . QUESTIONS. IF LEGITIMATE ISSUES SURFACE DURING TIiIS PROCESS; THEIR VALIDITY SHOULD NOT BE DISCOUNTED BECAUSE OFYOUR IMPOSED DEADLINE OF AUGUST 20, 1996. ~~ t~ Statement 1995 Statement CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.-QUESTIONS 1. ANNEXATION OF THESE TAX LOTS WAS APPROVED ON 3-21-96. AS ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS WHY WEREN'T WE NOTIFIED OF THE PROPOSED ANNEXATIONS, SO THAT OUR INPUT AND AREAS OF CONCERN COULD BE VOICED ? 2. CHANGING THE TAX LOT DESIGNATION FROM R-1-6 TO R-2 SO THAT TAX LOT 500 WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE R-2 DESIGNATION OF TAX LOT 600 TO THE SOUTH. TAX LOT 600 HAD TO BE DESIGNATED R-2 BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING HOMES THAT WERE ALREADY THERE. THIS .SITE, TAX LOT 600, WAS THE SITE OF THE SKYRMAN RANCH AND MANY OF THE SKYRMAN FAMILY MEMBERS BUILT HOMES BACK TO BACK, MAKING THAT AREA MULTIPLE FAMILY R-2 BY DEFAULT, IT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN BECAUSE NO OTHER DESIGNATION COULD BE ALLOWED FOR THAT TAX LOT. WHY ARE WE NOW DOUBTING THE WISDOM OF THE FIRST DESIGNATION R-1-6 FOR TAX LOT 500 ? HOW WILL THIS ZONE CHANGE BENEFIT TAX LOT 600 ? 3. HOW WILL THIS ZONE CHANGE IMPACT THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS ? A.) HOW WILL IT BENEFIT THESE PROPERTY OWNERS ? ~ IS THAT NOT AN AREA OF CONCERN FOR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ? B.) WHAT POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ASPECTS AS TO PROPERTY VALUES HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ? C.) WHAT NEGATIVE ASPECTS OF SALEABILITY OF THE EXISTING CUSTOM HOMES ON NANCY AVENUE-LENORE LANE-MARY'S WAY .HAVE BEEN .INVESTIGATED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ? DOESN'T THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAVE A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC AND THE PROPERTY VALUATIONS ? WE RELIE UPON YOU AS PUBLIC OFFICIALS TO DO WHAT IS BES4 FOR EVERYONE CONCERNED, AND IF I AM DAMAGED BY MY RELIENCE UPON YOUR OPINION AM I NOT THEN ALLOWED TO SUE YOU FOR DAMAGES ?. MALPRACTICE i 4. PRIMARY ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICATION,. WOULD BE FROM HIGHWAY 99N. IS'NT THIS A STATE HIGHWAY ? WHAT DOES THE STATE HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS ACCESS AND ALL THE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS.? ALSO NOTED IN THE APPLICATION ACCESS COULq BE PROVIDED BY EXTENSION OF MARY'S WAY AND NANCY AVENUE. DON!T YOU THINK THESE STREETS WOULD THEN BECOME THE PRIMARY ACCESS AND EGRESS POINTS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? 5. IN THE STATEMENT REGARDING LAND USE (#4) WHAT IS MEANT E3Y THOROUGHFARE COMMERCIAL SITES ? IT APPEARS WE HAVE A MISMASH OF ZONING DESIGNATIONS- INDUSTRIAL BUTTING UP TO COMMERCIAL ( BUSINESS? ) SITES, R-2 OVERLAPPING THESE AND THEN R-1-6 THROWN IN ON TOP. JUST WHAT IS CENTRAL POINT'S IDEA OE. GROWTH ? SHOULDN'T IT BE CONTROLLED WITH ALL ASPECTS OF ESTHETICS, LIVIABILITY, EXISTING FLAVOR CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING HOMES, ECONOMIC BENEFIT NOT DETRIMENT BE GIVEN EQUAL WEIGHT IN THE DECISION PROCESS THE MAIN ATTRIBUTE OF WHAT MAKES CENTRAL POINT A DESIRED PLACE: TO LIVE IS IT'S COUNTRY-OPEN SPACE FEELING. THIS IS WHAT R-1-6 ZONING IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. BY CHANGING THIS ZONING DESIGNATION YOU ARE ALLOWING URBAN BLIGHT-SPRAWL TO GET A FOOT HOLD. SHOULDN'T YOU HEED THE MESSAGES AND PROBLEMS SEEN IN WHITE CITY AND. PHOENIX DEVELOPMENTS ? IS CENTRAL POINT TO BECOME MEDFORD'S SLUM AREA ? IS THE MEDFORD PLANNING DEPARTMEN ALLOWING THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THEIR BOUNDRIE$ ? DOES. CENTRAL POINT WANT TO ATTRACT PEOPLE OF LOWER ECONOMIC STRATA.? WHY ?,SHOULDN'T O 1995 SCS/Compute 4 CF2126 07/0]/95 ~^' ti Statement 1995 Statement QUESTIONS CONTINUED CENTRAL POINT STRIVE TO BE LIKE ASHLAND OR MEDFORD'S EAST SIDE WITH HOMES THAT ARE ATTRACTIVE WITH ESTETHIC VALUES FIRMLY ENSCONCED AND PROTECTED ? AND SHORT-SIGHTED MONIED DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS WILL PROVIDE. WE DO NOT-WANT HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENTS THAT REACT NEGATIVELY ON OUR PROPERTY VALUES. WE WANT " GREEN TO BECOME MAIN STREAM " ONLY IN THE SENS THAT OPEN SPACES ARE TO BE PROTECTED AND INCORPORATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CENTRAL POINT. THESE OPEN SPACES SHOULD NOT BE PAVED OVER WITH THE HOLLOW PROMISE OF TRADE-OFFS IN THE VOLUME OF PROPERTY SUBJECT TO TAXATIO VERSUS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT SUBJECT TO TAXATION. 6. URBAN SERVICES - CITY OF CENTRAL POINT WANTS TO GET OUT OF THE WATER AND SEWER BUSINESS AND HAVE BCVSA PROVIDE THESE SERVICES. THE STAFF REPORT FROM THE ANNEXATION MEETINGS SUGGESTS THE APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE OFF'=SITE IMPROVEMENTS TO THESE SYSTEMS. THE CITY IS ALREADY EXPERIENCING MAJOR LEAKAGE PROBLEMS WITH THE WATER SYSTEMS THAT PROVIDE SUCH TO GREEN GLEN SUBDIVISION. WHAT IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY ? HOW WILL THEY BE PAID FOR ? HOW WILL THESE IMPROVEMENTS BE IMPLEMENTED ? WHAT PART DOES THE ,TACIT HANDSHAKE AGREEMENT BETWEEN BCVSA AND THE CITY REGARDING THESE SYSTEM-SERVICES PLAY IN THIS DEVELOPMENT ? 7. *** HERE'S THE BIG ONE FOLKS THE TRUE CRUX OF THIS DEVELOPMENT *** *** STORM DRAINS AND THE WETLAND ISSUES. ALSO, THE PROTECTION OF GRIFFIN CREEK AS A NATURAL WATERWAY STREAMBED. EVEN THOUGH IT IS USED AS PART OF TID'S IRRIGATION CANAL SYSTEM DOES NOT DISCOUNT GRIFFIN CREEK'S .HISTORY AND/OR IT'S ESTHETIC APPEAL. HAS-THE APPLICANT REALLY STUDIED THE POTENTIAL FLOODPLAIN PROBLEMS WITH GRIFFIN CREEK ? OR THE WETLAND ISSUE OF GRIFFIN CREEK ? I CAN GIVE YOU FIRST HAND PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE OF GRIFFIN CREEK FT~OOD PLAIN PROBLEMS SPECIFICALLY MY HACK YARD UNDER 4 FEET OF WATER IN JANUARY '96. ALSO, GRIFFIN CREEK FLOODE BOTH NANCY AVENUE AND MARY'S WAY IN 1980 CARRYING AWAY ALL OF MY LANDSCAPE TOPSOIL AND VEGATATION. IF YOU PAVE OVER 10.50 ACRES .OF LAND ALREADY UNABLE TO PROPERLY DRAIN WHERE WILL ALL THIS WATER GO ? WHAT IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE MADE TO MAKE THE DRAINAGE ADEQUATE ? I BEG TO DIFFER ON THE ,FIGURE OF THE EASTERN 33.3& OF THE SITE AS BEING LOCATED WITHIN TH 100 YEAR FLOOD ZONE, THE FIGURE TS CLOSER 60-70 ~ I CAN ATTEST TO THIS BY FIRST-HAND, SIGHT. ALSO, HAS. THE 500 YEAR FLOOD ZONE BEEN EXAMINED THE APPLICANT STIPULATES TO MEETING THE FEMA CRITERIA FOR FLOOD PLAIN DEVELOPMENTS. HOW ? BY WHAT MEANS ? WHAT IS THE FEMA CRITERIA REGARDING THIS TYPE OF FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT ? THE APPLICANT WILL ADDRESS THE WET- LANDS.ISSUES VIA MITIGATIONS CONSISTENT WITH DSL REQUIREMENTS. JUST WHAT MITIGATIONS ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ? WHAT ARE THE DSL REQUIREMENTS ? EVEN THE ANNEXATION STAFF EXPRESSED SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS, HOW HA5 THE APPLICANT ADDRESSED THESE PROBLEMS.''? THIS AREA IS PARTICULARLY RICH. IN WILDLIFE WITH CRANES, BLUE HERONS, 'CANADIAN GEESE, DUCKS OF ALL KINDS,. DOVES AND PHEASANTS USING THIS AREA AS FEEDING GROUNDS EITHER DURING MIGRATION OR AS YEAR ROUND NESTING GROUNDS. ALSO,THIS AREA. PROVIDES MANX ,NESTING AREAS FOR SONG-BIRDS,HUMMING-BIRDS, EVEN A LOST PEACOCK ONCE TOOK UP A NEST HERE. THE AREA ALSO PROVIDES A GOOD LIVING FOR MANY OF THE m 1995 SCS/Comppie 5 CF2126 OLO]i95 l Statement 1995 Statement QUESTIONS CONTINUED VERMIN-VARMIT-PEST POPULATIONS. RACCOONS, SKUNKS, POSSUMS, MUSKRATS AND INSECTS OF ALL KINDS USE THIS AREA. DON'T YOU THINK THESE ANIMALS SHOULD BE SOMEWHAT PROTECTED INSTEAD OF BEING PAVED OVER ? 8. POWER LINE EASEMENTS AND ACCESS. NOTHING STATED IN APPLICATION ABOUT POTENTIAL PROBLEMS RELATING TO THESE COVENANTS. POWER LINES ARE 1 OF THE 3 MAIN LINES GOING THROUGH THE VALLEY. WHAT DOES PACIFIC POWER HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT ?. 9. EASEMENTS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF GRIFFIN CREEK. WHAT PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN MADE FOR THIS EASEMENT-COVENANT ?. HAS T.I.D. EXPRESSED AN OPINION ? 10. GREEN GLEN SUBDIVISION HAS UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. WHAT PROVISIONS HAV BEAN MADE TO;EXTEND THIS TYPE OF UTILITY SERVICE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT ? 11. PLEASE EXPLAIN PAGE 52 - COMPLIANCE, WITH STATEWIDE GOALS - GENERALLY CONSTRUED TO MEAN CONSISTENCY WITH THE GOALS ?,GOAL 2 EXCEPTION CRITERIA WHAT ARE THEY TRYING SAY HERE ? BECAUSE OF THE " TENTATIVE " ANNEXATION THAT SS BEING " VERIFIED " TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE ARE. WE TO BELIEVE THAT THIS PARCEL IS ONLY FOR URBAN USE.? IT SEEMS THE CART IS AHEAD OF TH HORSE HERE.. THE PARCEL HAS NOT YET BEEN 100 ~ APPROVED TO 8E WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF CENTRAL POINT,-MAYBE BY OUR LOCAL OFFICIALS, BUT NOT BY TH STATE LAND USE OFFICIALS. YOU CANNOT GIVE APPROVAL TO A PROJECT THAT HAS OILY ".CONTINGENT " ANNEXATION. WE HAVE ALL SEEN INSTANCES WHERE THE PROJECT WAS ALLOWED TO GO AHEAD ONLY TO BE STOPPED.( ELK CREEK DAM ) OR ALLOWED TO BE COMPLETED ONLY TO FIND OUT LATER THAT IT WAS A TOTAL WASTE OF RESOURCES.( WHETSTONE PARK AND THE ROAD TO NOWHERE OR WASHINGTON WATER POWER PROJECTS THAT ARE NOW ABANDONED WITH THE RATE PAYERS STILL PAYING OFF THE BOND HOLDERS THROUGH BPA ASSESSMENTS ON THE POWER SUPPLIERS OR THE HANFORD-TROJAN POWER PLANTS AND THE TERRIBLE POLLUTION POTENTIAL THAT HAS YET TO FACED. PLEASE DO NOT BE SHORT-SIGHTED BY`FOCUSING ON THE NEAR TERM, BUT FOCUS ON THE HORIZON AND. THE LEGACY THAT WE ARE GOING TO LEAVE. THE APPLICANT ALSO STATES THAT THE SOLE QUESTION BEFORE THE CITY IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER AND ORIENTATION OF THE PROPERTY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND APPLY THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE DESIGNATION. HOW CAN THE APPLICANT SAY THAT A MANUFACTURED-HOME DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING GOALS OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS ? THIS TS NOT AN APPLICATION OF APPROPRIATE LAND USE GOALS, IT IS NOTHING MORE THAN A QUIC CASH HELTER-SKEETER DEVELOPMENT SATISFYING THE DEVELOPER'S GOALS AT THE EXPENSE OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT. 12. PG. 53 & 54 ( LAND USE PLANNING) " BASED UPON INFORMATION INDICATING A PUBLIC NEED: " WHOSE INFORMATION ? THE ZONING QUESTION SHOULD BE IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. 13. PG. 54 AGRICULTURAL LAND. PARAGRAPH STATF,.S THS LAND I5 " PROPOSED " FOR INCLUSION IN THE CITY LIMITS AND AS SUCH IS COMMITTED TO URBAN USE. -0NCE AGAIN THE CART IS AHEAD OF THE HORSE. THE ANNEXATION IS ONLY TENTATIVE SO HOW CAN THE LAND BE COMMITTED TO URBAN USE BEFORE IT IS ACTUALLY ANNEXED ? O 1995 SCS/COmpula - CF2126 0]/0]/95 Statement ~~~5 Statement QUESTIONS CONTINUED PG. 54 OPEN SPACE, SCENIC & HISTORICAL AREAS; NATURAL RESOURCES. HAS THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY INVENTORIED THE LOCATION, QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF THE RESOURCES. ? NO STATEMENTS REGARDING THE INVENTORY OF SUCH RESOURCES IS PROVIDED IN THIS APPLICATION. PG. 55 FINDING: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE TO MEDIUM DENSITY IS A FINE TUNING OF THE LAND USE SYSTEM. ? HOW IS THIS FINE TUNING.? IT IS A DRASTI DEPARTURE FROM FINE TUNING. FINE TUNING MEANS TO BRING CLOSER TO WHAT ACTUALLY IS. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTAL R-1-6 IS WHAT THE SURROUNDING AREA ACTUALLY IS. CHANGING THIS AREA TO R-2 IS NOT CONSISTENT'WITH THE IDEA OF " FINE TUNING ". THE SITE CAN BE DEVELOPED IN A MANNER CONSISTENT WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE. WHAT ARE THE CITY REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE. ? IS THIS DEVELOPER GIVING ONLY A TRANSCENDENTAL WISH-PROMISE OR HAS IT BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY A PLAN. ? OR ARE 'WE TO BELIEVE THAT'THIS WIL BE " FINE TUNED " DOWN THE ROAD. ? DON'T BE MISLEAD BY TEMPORARY PLEDGES THAT CANNOT AND WILL NOT BE FULFILLED. - PG. 55 AIR, WATER AND LAND 27ESOURCE QUALITY: ONCE AGAIN THE WETLAND ISSUE RISE " TO THE SURFACE. THE DEVELOPER "MAY" BE REQUIRED TO WORK WITH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND DSL ON THE WETLAND ISSUES.? IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED THAT THE DEVELOPER SEEK OUT AND WILL ASK FOR THE OPINIONS-HELP FROM THESE :AGENCIES. PG. 56 THE AREA SHOWN AS WETLAND-FLOOD PLAIN IS SHOWN AS OPEN SPACE ON TH TENTATIVE PLAT FOR THE PUD. ? THE PLAT MAP DOES NOT SHOW ANY OPEN SPACE .RELATING TO THE AREAS NOTED TO BE WETLAND-FLOOD PLAIN. IS THE DEVELOPER CONFUSED AS TO WHAT AREA IS THE FLOOD PLAIN-WETLAND. ? PG 58. RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY PLANNED FOR OVER 10 YEARS.? I PURCHASED MY HOUSE ON-NANCY AVENUE OVER 11 YEARS AGO AND WAS NEVER INFORMED OR NOTIFIE BY THE CITY OR THE OWNER OF THE PARCEL NOR WAS IT STATED IN THE COVENANTS OF THE SUBDIVISION THAT DEVELOPMENT WOULD TAKE PLACE. IN FACT I~PREVIOUSL CONTACTED THE OWNER OF THE PARCEL YEARS AGO ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DEVELOP- MENT PLANS AND I WAS GIVEN ASSURANCES THAT NO PLANS WERE~BEING PURSUED AN THAT ADJACENT LAND OWNERS WOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE AREAS OR LOTS IN THE PARCEL IF DEVELOPMENT WERE TO TAKE PLACE. I GUESS ALL I .REALLY GOT WAS A HANDSHAKE AND A SMILE. DAMN THESE GRAPES ARE SOUR. !!! CENTRAL POINT'S QUALITY OF LIVIABILITY AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA IS BECAUSE OF THE UNCROWDED-OPEN SPACE-COUNTRY FEELING. HOW CAN A HIGH DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IMPART THIS SAME KIND OF FEELING ? WILL THIS PROJECT BECOME SIMILAR TO ° THE 'MEADOWS "? A RETIREE COMMUNITY WHAT ARE THE DEVELOPER'S INTENTIONS-PLANS FOR THE PARCEL IF THE MANUFACTURED HOME IDEA IS NOT APPROVED ? WILL A NORMAL DEVELOPMENT BE PURSUED ? CORDIALLY BUT HUMBLY SUBMITTED; j `~' JAMES L. KNOX 1790 NANCY A~/ENUE ®1995 SCSiCOmpvle '~ CF2126 OLO]/95 August 20, 1996 City of Central Point Counsel 155 S. 2nd St. Central Point, Or 97502 Dear Counsel Members, As property owners in the GreenGlen Subdivision, we have considerable interest in the proposed development and zonal changes made forth by the developer... We reside at 1845 Nancy Avenue and have lived there for the past two years. When we selected our home from the vast masses of homes for sale during the 1994 yeaz, we decided that we liked the location especially well and that it seemed the most suitable area to raise our two young children and send them to public'school. Weespecially like the quiet, serene aspects that the azea possesses and that he traffic is very slight. This allows our minds to rest a bit at ease for our small children. Additionally, since both myhusband and I work for the. Justice system, we have serious concerns about our safety and well-being in that many of the clientele that we work with aze considered to be high-risk individuals with a propensity to committed serious crimes. It is our contention that we wanted to live in a quiet, somewhat private neighborhood, where there might be a strong sense of community due to a smaller subdivision, and less exposure to excess traffic and strangers to the community in which we live. We realized that when we bought our property that there maybe some possibility to future building, however, understood that the land was zoned for further R-1 zoning and that if there were to be more housing that it would consist of more of the existing type of residences. Since being in our home, we have upgraded and expanded considerably with our families needs as well as with the hope that our property values will increase favorably. Several questions come to mind when we considered the idea that the land surrounding us might be developed in the future. • Have there been any analyzes of potential increase of crime reports due to the higher volume of youth living in the close quarters in low income living conditions~triere is evidence to support the fact that there are considerably higher incidences of police reports in low income housing developments, an example for Central Point, is the Cherry St. Apt complex, whereby Central Point Police department responds to calls at least once a day, if not several times a day due to domestic violence, criminal mischief, and theft calls. It can be noted that in the department where we work, that a greater percentage of our crime reports come from the West side of Medford, and the azeas of White City and Phoenix, than in all other azeas. 13 • Would Nancy Av. And Marys Way become boulevards for the traffic that would be imposed by having an excess of vehicles pass through? • With that many families moving into such a relatively small azea, what amenities might the city consider providing to giving the children of these families a place to play as in a local pazk or central playground? Without this type of environment for the children, much of their time has to be occupied doing something. Our concerns are that they likely would find mischief rather than playtime if such facilities were not provided. • We ask that you consider asking yourself, would you want to have this type of development adjacent to your street? • What analysis has been done in effort to find the effect on property values? • What other properties have been considered. as sights? Have any been considered? We are extremely concerned about the well-being of our family and the safety of our community and the environment effects that may be caused by putting in essence two homes on the equivalent of one cityiot. It is apparent that the developer is more concerned about making a few extra dollars than improving the quality of life for families. Too little space is a cause fot• concern and the extra burden thaYit sets upon the community and the surrounding residents should be considered carefully. Since we have only heard of this agenda by word of mouth, we have had little time to prepare a statement, however would like you to consider all of our concerns and remarks before you render a decision upon the matter. Respectfully and sincerely submitted, Debra and Randy Settell 14 I Al~' `%IQL13?, SI""iI.4i?. I i,a` ;i: AT ,,..797 ^.rys i•Jay, Central point. I !JAS 0'~? OF TH 7 }i01'^0'd!`E^+: P10`I'IFIED C'F THF.' PROPOSED 'G'ONE CI:AiJGE AP!D PLAA'T.'E:D llr•JIT D'.i:a1iLCPPaEi~~T. I PURCY,ASED P'Y LOOT 17; 199 ,~P1b BUILT PiY HOUSE IN 7.991 EASED PARTLY, lEOv OD' TI1F P.1 ZOI~iI?. A!:OU:"JD Nc.. T AhS'TOTALLY OPPOSED TO THIS 'L019E CHAi~v'ii. I FEEL THIS TYPE: OF DEVELOPPiE\T: WILL L04.`EH OUH PROPER'T'Y VALUES `d TREP~ENDOUSLY. HO}"ES TN T}lE GREEN GLEN SIIBDIVISIOiE ARE VALUED c BETWEE:r: £37360 (low) to 142170 fihigh) ASSESSED VALUE AIOV. 1995• 1( HOA`ES 0`1T;R 100,000. 16 HOP1ES 0•rER 90,000 and 12 F'RGI'; 87360 to 90,000. THE CIT7LENS ADt!ISOR.Y COP1PIITTEE VOTED,AGAIPIST THIS PROJEC`1'. WrKNOW THE }IIGHWAY 99 (rJ• PACIFICtHYJY) STRIP IS ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRY OR COF'I•~ERCIAL. THE HIGH DE1\SITY OF THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT BS IN KEI;Pll•JG WITH THAT ZO;IING. I HOPE THE PROPOSED ZOA'E EHANGE WILh NOT BE ALLOWED. GU ,~ui lN'-~ n • ~ ~ .~~ / __...: < 15 . IYa~i_'.!1.T_lilliU!CL, Ned: u_u. 0: e~4~~. S=:u!: ~~, Ihccml.r lU_1981 ~~OOC~ ~1$S ~/gO,Ie~/ 16 ,~.~_.._ •SANOBAGCERS -''Central'Polnt Fire Oeparlmenl Iront door al muddd wafer sugounding their home crews, aWve, heave bags of sand near lM1e home of Joe on Ellendale Street Il We Oarnelt Road area in south Raer, 179:1 Nancy Way, Ss Ciiflin Creek Iefl Its bank Medford. Lou Richards, right, attaches chain to M1is Salurdjy, causing residents m flee Ihcir homes. Tap stranded Volkswagen m Ellendale Slrcel, a thoroughfare right, an unidentilicd woman and her chlldren look out that looked more like r rlvcr Saturday. ~`!fi` A Polilzer Aworl Newspoper ' ~' Medford/Jackson County, Oregon - Jlfonday, December 21, 1981 aeu~w~u iewaa ~ 26 Cents Cremes ta~l~le `, storm cleanup:; By KAAEN MERRILL and ALLEN HALLMARK wumwa.awtwdr.,. . Cleanup crews are busy today mopping up from We weekend storm Uret created havoc aad Ncenvenlence for many valley realdents but caused ao deaths, serious M- ~urlee or severe damage. "ti soon u We tabu subsided -about l1 p.m. Saturday we aoUced Immedl• rte repel;' Jackson County Emergency iervices Coordinator Dave YmdeH Bald. 'The storm didn't cause heavy damage n the heavily populated areas:' Rescue warken evacuated eight taml• les from Nancy aad Comet wage la the :antral Palnl area Saturday afternoon, mt We lamilles were a61e to return home iunday ~marning. Phoenls of(lclsls apeaed ip""City Hall and We elementary school as 7ood wafer [arced shout 80 percent of the >eople 11vWg N ~00•udt Hear Lake Mo- rUe Home Park to seek emergency a~e~~ err. The [amities returned to Ihelr homes rboul I a.m, Sunday. Yandell sold he double that the gover• wr will be asked to declare the county an ;mergcncy uea. WlWout the declazaUoa, here won't be any state aad federal U- >endalold !or the Road vlcGme. Crewe tram city, county, and state high~ say departments worked Around the dock durWg the weekend clearing cul- rerts, removing mud frem We roadways and posting high water dgm. Police age~~ :ter reported several minor aulomoblle tccldema caused by high water and mud rUdes. A emaU section of Oregon 298, Just east sf JackwnvWe, washed out SatuNayy af• :wnoon. Stale Highway Divleloa Resident Engineer George Thornton said Np•rap nark oo We section was nompl~led Sum lay and~he aspects pevlag to pe lldshed' ty late today. Thornton sold hla division R~MIII work- ng under emergency cehditlona and b aortied~thal a eecGOn of the Rogue River Loop Roa4 near Robertson Srldge - 12 mLLes west of Greats Pass -may go lato the river today. During the height of the alarm, mud tildes were reported en nearly aU the vajor highways. Thornton sold We-pava~ veal ha@ been cleared and PII roads are savable.. . •"'We've.:i:erolly•been werking around ne cloe6~~to repair the damages re- ~lorctht:oadwaya;'6eseld" to ' eve ere'hdhLtg tired up by Chr H we don'Vget it [ized before another storm hits, we will :r,c severe oro6lertrs." The NeUonal Wealher~Servlce nays fog' may be on the way. The forecast Wrouggh the weekend B [or dry weather aad pos9l-; 61e tog. Over We week, We galley received al- moel as much rain as It does durWgg an; average December. Fromeady Frldey; morWng through midnight Sunday, 2.10? Inches tell, bringing We monWly total lo. 6.82 Wches. The monthly average for De• camber is 9.891nches. ' Dave Hendria,the state walermesler tar Jackson Couoly, said today he has' received complalata from soma people who Uve along~We Rogue River that We US. Army Corps o[ Engineers walled too long before culUag book on Rowa tram Lost Crcek Dam. Bul.Ken Olson, the Co s protect man- ager for Lost Creek and Applegate dams, sold the Corps abut dawn Rows out o[ Lost Creek at 8:20 e.m. Saturday to the bare minimum 01200 cable feet per second. Olson sold the Corpps acted weU ahead of the peak Rowa on We river. He Bald Ne peak ^ows Into the ~reservo4 didn't occur unU12 p.m. Saturday. Swollen creeks downstream from LOat' Ltcek Dam apppaarently cenWbuted most, of the minor llooding near Rogue River of around T9,100 c[s hit around tnldmght Saturday. He said I! lakes peak flows about 10 hours to reach Croats Pau after 6eing released [rom Lwt Crcek IJam. "I underaland that Grants Pace l9 a llt- Ue 61t unhaPPY~' Olson sold "We stopped all we sold at UratUme." Early Saturday,otfldais had(eared Ural the rata would melt the eaow pack on Moupt Ashland, but It turned to snow about 2 pm.. More Urau 20 Inebea (eU on Ne mountain over the weekend, glvhtg It tl base of 6s 1nrLea. At' (kater Leke, It 'iaowed 24 Inches over the weekend and about 4 Incites !eU at Hoa{prd Prabie YandeU said Drat more than 000 people called the;fi'lood Control. Center estab- llshed Saturday 1n tl~e County Courthouse auditorium: Most o[ {he Callers wasted ln• formation on! ow hlg6 the water would get, he sold, a~d only a 6endlu~ teported- ''Hardest hll S,r..~tgh water was the $raa., along Bear k between Ashkud'end` Harnett Road tit Medford; east Medford and the Central Point azea. Rogue Valley Memoriai Hospital and residences in southeast Medford lost tel- ephone service Saturday when under- ground cables got we[. FTERMATH - Ibn Russell (pick--'the CtififraT Poin[adcrew clean up .g up sandbag) and Rick BartleU of on Nancy Way lhi~rnin4. i i +v. ~ ~'. .. ~ t a F:` .. {JU i:4by .e - ..• alley resideota weren't lruckin' ~ori down Crater Lake and gat strand addling in a row boat in a flooded Hubbard-Wray Co.. attached a.`bh. e the pickup above, drove.Jtis vehicle dnto•Ute water alley Sgig;~ rr~- B KAREN MERRILL .. ri.u mww awr wnt< ~~.Two_daye of heavy rainfall bro Dood wsilets to Jackr,on County Salur covering roadways, causing mud el and forclag eotne residcaU to flee theU homes. More Uian 2.9 Inchm of rain tell on valley floor In We 29-hour period e al 10 p.m. Saturday. The recard~29- ralNall U 3.73 Inches la December 196 High water created hazardous co~ Uom on nearly all the major highway the county. Jackson County Sheriff Du Fraokllu reported that Oregon 62 closod for more than an hour Jusl soul ~ near S¢enle Juolor Iilgh School were forrod to evacuate their hoptes at~about 6 ughl p.m. 6slurQay;c-; - ' day, - ~~-The Red Cross eaUbllshed a abettor for Idea the flood vlcllrsu at Central Patat EIV- jrom menlary School In the south ¢oanly, Bear Creek 'over- the Bowed IU hooka at several localloas be- , odlag lween Ashland and Mcdtord. ResldenU o[ hour Bear LakR Mabilo'Aome Park at the was A(oWer mobile home parks along Bcar h of C7eek resldenU began movln furNture lc Shady Cove Saturday night by mud eUdea. AulhorlUts said no other maJor roads were Closed by the downpour, but rho Uood waters raised havoc an some road- ways,.among others closing a Iaoe o[ Ualfic on Jacksonville Highway. The NAL(odal Woalher Service Usued a Uevelei a advisory for people heading out of the valley to the mouth end east. Oregon Slate PoUce reported packed snow on In- ierstate 5. over the Stskiyou Summit, on Oregon Od(We.Oreeo Springs Highway) and Oregon 190 to Klamath FaIU, and o0 Oregon 230 and Oregon 198 in the Dia- naondLate area.Travelera were advised muse chairtv or fraction devices. In Central Point, despite (our hours of sandbagging by the city Fire Department and volunteers to seem Rooding Griffin Crest, residents living on Nancy Way higher greuod. Some tamllea Jett theh homes al Nauvoo Trager Park at Orpgoc 99 and Valley Vlew Road at the wrt4 Ashland lnUrchaoge. The downpour shoWd turn Into showers by noon today, and dry weather should return to the valley by Tuesday, the Na- tional Weather Service reported late Sat- urday. Early Saturday authorities feared the heavy rains would melt the snowpack on Mount Ashland and cause severe ^ood- Ing in the Ashland Watershed and the city of As4land. Bul at shoal 2 p.m. We rain turned to snow el We 1,000-fool level. 'The snow maybe our lucky card;' said Fred Dauber of the Ashland Ranger Dis- Uict of the Rogue Ricer National Forest. "We would have been io real danger if we'd gotten much more water on the snowpack:' ... Lkaber estimated thattha rgln melted betW aeo B Inches and q toot o[ aaow oo the mountala Saturday batore It elarllag AnoWiag agala To roduce We Rood haa- atd, We city of Ashland ryater De ItlCat CUt OUIIIOW from Reeder ReeCrvo~lr. ~At Lost Crest Dam .9l loches of rata tall between i a.m, sad goon 6aturday and the reservoir rove gearly;feet, Flood eUge on the Rogue Rlvbr at We Gold Ray Dam modlatiag sUUda U 13 feet The gauge NoWed 12.5 feet ot, water at noon Saturday. As tae Rogue River aearea Rood stage, auUlow at We dam was reduced to 200 cubic feet per second. BNoro 0:50 a.ta. Saturday outflow hqd been 8,000 cubic feot per second. "It's been a hectic day, but we're sot going to have any Uaoding trouble;' sold DPllt0n McFerl)n, powerhouse operator al Lost Crrxk. "We'll he able to handle IG" Al Applegate Dam, 3.98 Inches of rein was recorded belwcen 7 a.m. Friday and 2 p.m. Saturday. The reservoir raised 10 feet Saturday to 1,911.32 feet above sea level. Outflow from the dam was /,000 CUBIC I(£t per second. Chrstmas shopping and football games were i::errupted Saturday for many em- playees of public agencies. Offduty Sher- UCs DeparUnenl persasnel Were called in to answer 'Flood Control Center" lNe- phonts. The :cod waters kept state, county and - MT pbMO by 0ut Poe ry Young, left, and Mike Barlow, he idt att.. For more photos o1 a wet ia~pC Is anPagc 15A " ~>.~' ~r ,'i. - e r highway crews busy uapluggWg ~:_ U and street drabs. Voter washed out a portloo N Oregon between Madtord and Japkeoavllla I mud elides blocked one-lane of Vafllc Oregon 88'ncar. rho Green Springe sacUOae of Oregon 02. ~ ` ~ ' U.S, Faresl Service and Bureau o[ Land Menagemant cspWa also Iled lheU 4andg tug Saturday. - . "I called In as many people ae I could [Ind al home," said Cartall MSnaveld of the-BLM. "There Was more water lhao our cWverls rnuld take. We bad widely acallerod problems caused bythe henry runoff." In southeast Medford telephone service was cut off when three cables were drenched. Pacific Northwest Bell set. up an emergency mobile unit to provldo lair. ,phone service to Roguo Valley MemarUl Nospltal. - PNB spokesman Tom McGill said be didn't know when telephone service womd be teslorod. "We haven't been able to determine where We cables arc welt' he said. "We have oo Idea H we can get fn the source of We problem." Crater lake received S.7 inches of rain In the 29 hours before It started snowing at 9:90 a.m. Saturday. Snow on tap of roadway slush caused several minor Ual- lic accidcnLS, a park spokesman said. 1 ~~ ''L ~~ ~~ ' ;. I ~~ {1= b d i m d £ ~ p V C O V C ~ Y ~'m ` ~ q V U ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ c °c m~°,,-°oa m"c°'i d N 4 0 of°v hCA°v~ y C V m y >mpcc°G3~ ~ W Q' O Vl ~ p ~ y 6 M > T'O .~ N aN CU p Td~ ~ e o a~ m a A° -~+ c° 8o.~~~z~v",° E~.a c5 sY=, Q $' m v `.~ g wCf t7 D`m °-30 V d b ~ B l~ ppa a 5'»3 og. d5a Y5° °m c°b 6 C C d m p dp p~ 96 i~~4 ripo~ ~~,ga`:a d d N E O O e p r « GNUGd p a ~ a. C ^ Y g O.O rg°°"s ~<s,gm~~' p dmt. `a m56~°' ~~5`E4 oa°°c L°iad X nee a.d.~5~rv Faao~^FpY~Gs p `.~'d W=O~OC bd E4~.pd> _T ~p m~'V'NUS~ C v, p m .. ~p ~IaiB Yi7°^e d'S 9pp T N i O.O. NDN W~ Bp 9 E E ~ ~E 0 E~~w b .'S O JC ~Y C Y'° C .. ~ 4 6 y p 7 a~ u T C'C '~E . ~ CCC ~ ~vo9 E^ °m° w 4~ y~ O d YaaY V ~. L OVVN ~ OdpA 6'~B. ~g°o a~> y} b7 ~w >-~' Pio ~I d 6 °o ~'.dT. «E `h89.. v5 ~.. ,., ~. .eee r V gg q ., «'~° ~9 L° -a°a°•~:d a$'a$m~.~`~ Z~dCa wp°~y« dti« g9 ~o maw {~~ .; .~ `,R ~.~qq x ~ypC .e Woe E~~pxy ey a 5xo °pE f4v '"~` p„ ~L 'gzsp~~:'. o`g .~B~ g~jMo oy oo wino °Oq~ ''SY~ owa a au ~ ~ ~m . w G p wa tG v... d m ~~ d'9'~ Y '~+~ °.v u.J o^ a 6 d o° C~ b ~adNC KYB ~ d CO dJf OOVd~MQ Q~ ~ OLD dq V a ~~ii rq9 ''9p u.~ l'~tip BV9 ug ~ Wg~~FV ~~_ 9Q~x_' `~ 6~ Cyd CF ~~ E ~e%N QV p~ pN 5 ~•-FI 2yYj y p ~jW,t YyN .K dVp 'V,Va 5 0...90E pO GOdyp'C o~p J] VOA Yq~ NC Ndu~d~ 'jB SEg. °A~ Yea a E~~mSv c~ SBre~wo Zug' S°cw c.g °°au g5 ~$~9 ~H '] oa °'- ~ Pi '~~o 9 5 q...a U.,. ~Cn a ° p V~dd Ti55°BU ~ 6 c p pur 'Q O V ~d .Yi gy Baaa]]>$bEa m~ 9 br~°.°~N C C~ .qQa^/GV DY~d 5°" ~i0a ~. Wy CY p0°09~ ~ b am NV, UL bL1~Cy~._ Lpe Q._ «.'Vy ~[ ai ~y yb yo4~i~~G NVNj4 G' n $ 'X DL a« 'J'am B dE o ~ ~dA 2S 8i >.G .6q~HBa. ZS vS p-~ >'. B°~° °m'~ .Eao a°a Uf Tp~dyLLL9 DOO .u TBdmd Gq Na ~ ~aaCd dm mV9z Hdy«V C.pb yN O'° ~~` ~5 yo~4oai Tmv B du~v {o~E a.yyo u"u~y ma yy'Sy d'<JV<Eya r$;~56v BS ~.v/5>~'± tDa S~aB OOCnbpS T"E pCJ5L~6aN.N ~UCO'O^d4N!~OG ~ya ~j9 N9d ONNy~V.'~ COQ ~Tyddr >^p N ~0 LWl'q}pQ(4 a N^.N~> VC_nNO ~N d {~ 0 9 e B y ~ B q b J~~ 9 d~~ N 5 N .° p p N~ a p V 5 V y' > T° N a' 'n " A L yy .. z p'U f O C~ N W a N N r G .-. N p'S O b n' ~ d° C ~' .... d i e iC Vy ~~°~P:mJ~vo~H a.. $. UTp$U aa`e5<a9gfiU ~G'9°e F'cs^r_ EAm^BYo~~: Sgo° c°.s vfLm ° ~« .°-'~B av 6`o m16 K..np ~ -°B C o '.qp a ~" ~ Y is Dare: August 20, 1996 To: City of Central. Point Planning Department FROM: Mark and Sherri Nystrom Re: Miller Estates' Application for Amendment and Conditional Use Permit lots 500 and 600, T37S,R2W,S03. Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map for a Planned Unit Development, Tax cc: Guy and~Zoe Nallia, File My wife and I would like to go on record as opposing the above mentioned Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Amendment and Cbnditional Use Permit Application. We have lived in Green Glen for nearly fifteen years and feel that approval of this application would severely degrade the livability of this subdivision. The application area is zoned R-1-6 and should remain as such. Our main areas of concern are as follows: 1. Nancy Avenue and Marys Way will not be able to safely handle the increased traffic load this development will generate. The intersection of Nancy Avenue and Scenic Road already has an unsafe line of sight for traffic westbbund on Scenic,_particularly in the afternoon when school children are present. In addition the eastbound turn onto Scenic from Nancy, across the bridge, is slow and dangerous because of the angle of the intersection. .Tripling or quadrupling the traffic load willmake this access unsafe at any speed. 2. The area west of Griffin Creek from where it crosses Highway 99 north to Scenic Avenue is prone to frequent flooding and has wetlands significance. The past two years 'the area has held standing water, providing migratory game habitat as well as a natural sump for flood control. ;'Developing this area will. destroy this habitat and increase the likelihood of downstream flobd damage. Have these issues been addressed with the EPA, the Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and other appropriate agencies? 3. Development of 80 manufactured homes on the subject property will have a major detrimental financial effect on the homeowners in Green Glen. Homeowners in Green Glen bought here knowing the adjacent property was zoned R-1-6 and future development would. be in custom single family, homes. We've cbmmitted our time, effort and resburces to these homes and now our. investments are at risk because of this proposed change. The original R-1-6 is the correct zone and the property should remain zoned R-1-6. 1Gi V 9. Lastly I feel that interested individuals situation two days ago. situation? I feel this affected by it have had issues involved. the time allowed for questions and comments by is completely inadequate. I was made aware of this How am I supposed to adequately study the decision should be postponed until all those ample opportunity to study and comment on the In conclusion we would like to go on record as opposing this Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map Amendment and Conditional Use Permit Application. The original R-1-6 zoning was the correct one and should not be changed. Sincerely Mark W. Nystrom ~'~~~U ~yr~~ Sherri M. Nystrom 1811 Nancy Avenue Central Point, OR ~r { - _ _' _ ~ -~~-'lam ; ~ c~,~,c• ~ f~ , _ . ,J { -- _._. {1Cl~GU<Go~~'r~- ..~~CL~__.LJ_f:C%«_~.!_;C.u~._~~ Q;:._~~ G~._.:,c-C:<4;i ~, _- ......._ !a'1.C~1~ CUJ~/~~~.~(/hG2l~..~/~~/!/Cl`~, .L~ ~CX~G_a_ { ~~..U~l~i~-~ ~ ~ - /ills-~., ,(C3 l~CJ1~,(~Y~.- !-..Ulln-~~ - Q/Y~~.~ ~.e'.1~~ _L __ _ ; L~Yy~~e1 L t~. `' ~1 ~/ , ~~ _ _x,(02, ~~~G~ ~21L. Ci7~~~ ''...~/~ ... -. - -- ,/ ,,'' __ .. ~QUJ . __.. ~LCtLi~,_ .C/_'v-~h_ ... CL C~C~cLC~U Gf{ ,GUYS-CGa,GCQ-~ _ ,~L~L;r, rf~'1v_~.__.~l'J_... Q/c_..Gc.?v_..~iCU<~.. CL ~//r1G?'~rnalZ `'~J-.J. ~- -? ~~ /~~~ ^~ c2U!-~..; _ XCICJC~.._ ~~~0:7~. ~fL; l- "~ ._~C? .~i-C'C.i~..~/~ Gi,~cC ~~~ f ~ ~~ y ~~~j C~~celF__.fLc%~r~ ,llU~ ~tGC O_2o~ ~ 000r` ~) ~ // ~ i ~ ~" ~,, ~JcYU ~(JGCXG~. CEO?',-;~C.c_C~~ ~~. ~QCILx- ~1~U,C~Ci,LUi'~_ ' ~/ r. ~l ~-, .._~ Qom-.- Q;O •LI,~LQ_J (~U 1".l~~c!!.(/.1'i1=(~.~~~~G:~_~- .~~"~1:~~ i .~Q ~.~JYi~~1~i ~~, ~2~ ,C:~~L~Q/~~ ~ L/~L• (~ILI~YtL)G~'~` ~., Uw ~ .horn /~- r ~ ~ - ~.: ~cGl~ .:-~ ~~ac~ ~~~~ - ;~ ~P/~;-~C[(x'L.. ~0~~ j~~i? . C~CIZ.. ~~ lf(fx.rL, ~.~LCJl1Y1 .Lr}~ C/l', Y~ ~ ~.. ~26o CUr1Z~c... -- ;;: - -; ii: _ ..... r li _-. .. _. I _._. - ' ___ I~ __ _. _ -- {~ _ __ ~- _ _ . _._. ~j __ _ ~ • ~, _ - _ __ , ,I .._ _ __ i • ~~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION/COUNCIL MEMBERS I AM OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE OF ZONING FOR THE PARCEL OF PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE VICINITY EAST OF HWY 99 AND SOUTH OF ~~SCE NIC ROAD. (375 2W 03B TAX LOTS 500 8 600). MY OBJECTIONS ARE AS FOLLOWS: MAJOR TRAFFIC PROBLEMS FOR THE AREA SCHOOLS WIL L BECOME OVERCROWDED -- VALUE OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WILL DECREASE FE AR THAT CENTRAL POINT WIL LBE COME THE CAPITOL FOR MANUFACTURE D HOMES IN THIS AREA OF SOUTHERN OREGON CENTRAL POINT IS G ROW ING AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT GROW IN A POSITIVE WAY. - I WOULD LIRE TO SEE THE A REA CONTINUE TO BE ZONED AS R1 (SINGLE FAMILY OWE CLINGS) IN KEEPING WITH THE EXISTING HOMES IN THE SAME AREA. ~~ ~.• ~M ELIZABETH L. ORR 1833 MARY'S WAY CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 24 I;J~ 1 EI 1"J~G ~,. ::~ 33~~_ ~n , _.... _ ~~._ August 16,1996 Mr. James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director City of Central Point Dear Sir: 1. We the undersigned residing at the address indicated request that this letter be brought to the attention of the Central Point Planning Commission in reference to the meeting. of August 20, 1996, 7:00 P.M. concerning the Miller Estates Planned Community Development. We declare our opposition to the proposed plain of Miller Estates located in the, N.W. 1/4 , section 3, T.37S., R.2W., W.M. Jackson County, Oregon known as tax lots S00 and 600 for the following reasons: a. When purchasing our homes we desired to be in a R-1-6 residential zone. We felt comfortable in this area as. our subdivision Green Glen and all areas abutting were zoned R-1-6 and that any future development would follow the over all master plan and be required to be an R-1-6 zone. b. Strong objections are made against the lack of minimum requirements for manufactured home type, such as single, double or triple wide homes. This project as stated could look like a mobile home park. c. A ruling in Oregon specifically allows manufactured homes to be sited on existing lots within any subdivision 25 providing they meet.. the requirements of local governing offices.. This ruling allows. a blend of ,homes in a zoned area ruled by City Authority to be either manufactured or site constructed. It seems to us that- affordable housing can be arrived at in a R-1-6 zone. This project has the appearance of an upgraded mobile home park at the expense of current property .owners of Green Glen subdivision and a gain for developers of Miller Estates through lot sales and any PUD fees. The average value for homes in Green Glen subdivision is 90 to 100 thousand dollars with even some homes.. next to lot lines of the :proposed Miller Estates exceeding the average value by several thousand dollars. Stated. values as described in economic :feasibility/ market analysis for Miller Estates are expected to be valued between 56 and 68 thousand dollars. d. With such a large number of lots in Miller,~states and any such, type of .future growth in other adjoining property the Green Glen residents would see. their property down graded to a possible 40~ reduction just because of the clutter created by the small tot size. e. A development of small lots creates additional pressure for children to play in the street. Though there is open space along Griffin .Creek and along Highway 99 it cannot. be used as • open space for play even if fenced due to safety conditions. Thus, the designated play area is too small to serve all of the children. f. It is apparent that Nancy Ave and Mary's Way will become primary entrances to Miller Estates even with .the proposed 26 Highway 99 entrance opening. As a matter of fact other traffic will probably use'both old and new subdivision roads to reach' Highway 99 to avoid'Scenic/99 crossing. To date Green Glen roads are in poor condition and additional traffic will do nothing but make conditions worse. g. The residents of Green-Glen are concerned about water pressure with 80 additional homes placed on the current 8" line without immediate looping with 12" line on Highway 99. It is assumed the sanitary sewer will be no problem only if routed direct to-the 36" regional trunk line to the east of their property. h. We have concerns about the probable success of the Miller Estates Homeowner's Association, 'Inc, of being a true viable and properly financed conveyance to deal with the many problems that they will encounter. Even cities and counties are not able to abate many problem areas. Records prove this is a fact. PUD's most often fall short of what 'they were written to accomplish. i. It appears that the area could be used as a multiple dwelling area with R-2 zoning. 2. We oppose any zone change in the undeveloped surrounding lands, the initial zoning appears to be satisfactory. Affordable housing can be constructed for all in the zones as currently mapped and leaving the zoning as is causes no detriment to the established developed neighborhood that Central Point can be proud of. 3. We respectfully sign this letter and ask that persons ~~ signing this letter be notified im writing of any future Planning Commission meetings beyond the August 20, 1996 meeting pertaining to this matter. Name Address ~~~'~--~.L C6. -~~iv~--~- /oZr~ C~zo~,~/n/ ASE. C~. /~ y~~,s~~ ~E,~7fba/~ l~i~sz~ , Div 9~,5-a~ 28 ITEM ~L- Si Hers of Petition Submitted at Miller Estates PUD Public Hearing - 8/20/96 Lloyd & Barbara Albern 900 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Ron Torrey 907 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 _ Richard & Kathryn Davis 909 Coniet Av. Central Point 97502 Lorraine Smith 1000 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Derek Henry 1001 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Michael McConnell 1003 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Barbara Straus. 1005 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 .Peggy Anderson 1007 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Steven & Marilyn Duffell 1100 Comet Av. Central'Point 97502 Donald Charley 1101 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 William & Nina Fisher 1103 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Patricia Bosworth 1105 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Mark Saltmarsh ]203 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Marie Kincaid 1210 Comet Av. Central Point 97502 Elizabeth Russell 810 Crown Av. Central Point 97502 Norman & Bettie Bruce 5055 Dobrot Wy. Central Point 97502 Sherrell & Nancy Sears 5085 Dobrot Wy. Cehtral Point 97502 Duane & Beverly Shinn 5092 Dobrot Wy. Central Point 97502 Ruth Broomfield 5111 Dobrot Wy. Central Point 97502 James & Barbara Owen 5168 Dobrot Wy. Central Point 97502 Cheryl Robertson 5212 Dobrot Wy. CentralPoint 97502 Thomas Shope 5233 Dobrot Wy. Central Point 97502 George & Joanne Johns 5236 Dobrot Wy. Central Point 97502 Robert Bowen- 2061 Lenora Wy. Central Point 97502 John, Freida & Richard Minter 2066 Lenora Wy. Central Point 97502 Philip & Robin Badrua 2077 Lenora Ln. Central Point 97502 Robert & Zoe-Leta Nallia 2085 Lenora Ln. Central Point 97502 Merle & Shelley Wilson 2088 Lenora Ln. Central Point 97502 Oscar Stallsworth 1791 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Violet Singler 1797 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Fred & Barbara Santos 1801 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Steven Murphy 1814 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Rebecca England 1815 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Normalee Roberts 1826 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Norma Jean Ebert 1827 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Elizabeth Orr 1833 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 David & Julie Edwards 1834 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Mike & Brianna Andreatta 1841 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Scott & Teri Higinbotham 1842 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Karen Parks 1843 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Frank & Kay Armstrong 1850 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Robert & Cory Cushman 1851 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Lewis & Anastasia Buckley 1862 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 Diana Fredericksen 1863 Marys Wy. Central Point 97502 31 Mary fvm Knight Dennis & Shelly Childers David & Christina Hill Ron & Earline Ross .James Knox Gail Plei~us Risa Hall Douglas & Teresa Sparks Mark & Sherri Nystrom Robert & Luann Allison Roberty & Dorothy Johnson Brad & Monique Noyes John & Joan Hilgeman John & Ruth Zumwalt Randy & Debra Settell Charles & Patricia Konold Howard & Lynn Tally Charlotte Leonard C. DeAnne & Amber Wilson Mary Sullivan Gary Rutledge Anna Carter Fred & Tamara Drake Sylvia King Thomas & Julie Britton DeLoss & Connie Crowder 1871 Marys Wy 1874 Marys Wy 1886 Marys Wy 1898 Marys Wy 1790 Nanc}~ Av. 1790 Nancy Av. 1804 Nancy Av. 1810 Nancy Av. 1811 Nancy Av. 1821 Nancy Av. 1824 Nancy Av. 1831 Nancy Av. 1832 Nancy Av. 1838 Nancy Av. 1845 Nancy Av. 1846 Nancy Av. 1855 Nancy Av. 1885 Nancy Av. 1897 Nancy Av. 4005 Rock Wy. 4005 Rock Wy. 1886 Scenic Av. 1900 Scenic Av. 1909 Scenic Av. 1922 Scenic Av. 1976 Scenic Av. Central Point.97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 Central Point 97502 ~~ (503) 773-4385 ^ 1014 N. RIVERSIDE • MEDFORD, OR 97501 August 28, 1996 Jim Bennett Central Point Planning Depa'rtrnent 155 South Second ,Street Central Point, Oregon 9750'L To the Planning Department, We feel that the City of Central Point currently has one of the best, if not the best, zoning p1anE in the Rogue Valley. Your present mix of commercial, residential and industrial is very wr=11 balanced and contributes greatly to the small-but-up-and-coming image that wE feel Central Point exemplifies. We further feel that it is all too easy to upset that balenpe and create undesirable ripple effects that can affect the city fGr years to come. We have become aware that the parcel south of our property which is Map X137 2W O:iH TL 300 and 400 is under consideration for rezoning from R-1-6 to R-2. We went to go on record as-being against that rezoning because we feel tYiat it would create. ,just. the upset that. your city. does not need and would seriously unbalance your excellent planning efforts to date. Yours truly, Louie P. Mahar, President PacTrend Inc. n a cJ ~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM HEARING DATE: September 3, 1996 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Conditional Use Permit to Allow the.Expansion of the Rainbow's End Day Care Center at 51 I S. 4th (37 2W 11BC Tax Lot 7900) Summary: The applicant, Rick Wooton/Rainbow's End Day Care Center, has applied for a Conditional Use Permibto allow the expansion of the existing day care center at 511 S: 4th Street. The property is located in an R-1-6, Residential Single-Family (6,000 sq. ft.) zoning district. Day care centers are allowed as conditional uses in the R-I-6 zoning district. The project would remove a portion of the existing structure and replace it with an 11 AO sq. ft. addition for a net gain of approximately 1000 sq. ft. The addition would be built to match the front building line of the existing structure along Bush St. This would require a variance, however, as the existing stnrcture;is built only one foot from the property line. Bush Street is an 80-foot right-of--way and encompasses most of the existing parking and drop-off area for the day care center. The variance would also have to address the inability of the project to meet off-street parking requirements. The applicant submitted an application for a Variance on August 27, 1996. In order to hold a public hearing on both the Conditional Use Permit and Variance applications concurrently, it will be necessary to continue the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit to the regular meeting of September 17, 1996. Recommendation: Staff recommends ;that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on the Conditional Use Perntit for the expansion of the Rainbow's End Day Care Center to the regular meeting of September 17, 1.996.. 34 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Datc of Bearing: September 3, 1996 To: Central Point Planning Commission From: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director Subject: Variance Application for Lot 54, Valley Point Subdivision, Phase II (372W 11 DD- 15400; Zoned R-2) Summary: The applicant, L:W. Bill Charley, has applied for a variance for LotS4:of the Valley Point Subdivision, Phase ll. The variance would allow lot 54 to fall below the minimum 10 foot rear yard setback for subdivision lots: Authoritu: CPMC 1.24.020 invests the "Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application fo>• a subdivision variance. Notice of the public hearing was effected in accordance with CPMC 1.24:060. '' Discussion: The applicant, L.W. Bill Charley is preparing to construct a single family residence on the corner of Beall and Heather Lanes. The size of the residence in relation to the lot configuration has made it necessary for the applicant to request a variance of the 10 foot rear yard setback. CPMC 17.08.290 defines the front lot line as the property line abutting the street and in the case of a corner ]ot, the property line having the shortest street frontage. The front lot line for this parcel is located along Beall Lane but the applicant must take access through I-leather Lane as a condition of approval for Phase II of the Valley Point Subdivision. The applicant is requesting a variance to allow the structure to be positioned 6 feet from the rear property line. 1 ~~ Pindinlzs: CPMC 17.AO.olO requires That thePlanning Commission may grant a variance if Endings are made that the following considerations will either result from the granting of the variance or do not apply to the requested application:.. 1. The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city such as beautifcation or safety; 2. The variance will not have any sibmifcant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; 3. The variance will utilize property within the intent and the purpose of the zoning district: 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district; and Staff concurs with the applicant's claim that the parcel is the only lot in the Valley Point Subdivision, Phase II with the special access situation. If the applicant had been able to take access from Beall Lane Rather than Heather Lane, a variance would not have been necessary. 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._ and approve the variance for Lot 54 of Valley Point Subdivision, Phase II, based on the findings of fact and staff conclusions contained in the record; or 2. Deny the proposed variance; or 3. Continue the public hearing for the variance application at the discretion of the Commission. A jt. '~ Txhibits A: Application for Toning Variance. B: Site Plan for Lot 54, Valley Point Subdivision, Phase IL C: Applicant's .lusti6cation for Required Findings. D: Notice of Public Hearing ' 3 37 H/ .~IVHI IVIV ~ vrt ~.v.v. •r~. u.'.¢~.yy. vrvrv._ 5 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT~"'~C°~! L~r_'~~ 1. APPLICANT JUG 22 1996' Name: ~' ~ ~~~- L el/k2 ~ FOP r:ITY OF CEPffNA! POINT Address: ~~ ~u ~3Sq T!P:1E -~ City: ~ Ir~ra ~n"^h- State: ~~- Zip Code: 97x04 Telephone: Business: "`~~/ g~ `~' `' '`~' ~- Residence: S~^^~ 2. AGENT INFORMATION Address: City: Telephone: Business: Residence: Zlp Code: 3. OWNER OF RECORD (TAlttach Separate Sheet II More Than One) .Name: Ll•J l7J-(mil- CFfR2r-EY Address: ~c9 t3ox `7 ~~ City: ~~r?'°'~ YbT^/T- State: ~2 Zip Code: Telephone: Business: S9/ Fr;SS,SSOR Residence: sa.-c F 4: PROJECT DESCRIPTION ''// / Township:37a. Range:~~Secllon:,Q~ Tax LOI(s):~SYD~ (L,uT S~j) T' Zoning District: Total Acreage: ~8~ So '~'(' RPII?()K ~' 1~'~r ~20M Ti+~ ('wsr t~.rJ '(; OP th,L+.P2~n(~s,rt~~_ 5. REQUIRE~DSUBMITTALS _,/. U/Thls Applicallon Form LJ Wrillen`AUlhorlly fmm Propeny Owner It Agent U SilePlan and Elevations Drawn to Scale (10 ~..// in Applicallon Process ~sels) : C7 Legal Description of the Properly f~" One Copy of a Reduced Site Plan and (9 Findings (Addressing Criteria In Secllon 17.80 Elevations (8 1/2" x 11 ") of the Central Point Municipal Code) f~ Application Fee ($200.00) 6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I cenlly that t am the: L7 Property Owner or ^ Authorized Agent of the Owner of the propo~se4d proj/ec~tf7si/te~. /J Signature O1 ~~'P-u*•' ~~`~^ Date 7~Z Z/QUO ~ If any wetlands exist on the site, it Is the applicant's responsibility to apply for a permit to ~ Division of State Lands before anv site work bestins. ' UPON FORMALLY ACCEPTING YOUR APPLICATION, THE PIANNING DEPARTMENT WILL MAIL A COPY OF THIS FORMTO YOIJ 3 ~ cxty of Central Point EXH:iSI:T "A" ,: Planning Department ~~ tN .. C !~ 7 r ~~ ~. ~ `o ~` .,.: d y ~. ; ~ ~ ~ o :~ 39 ,n~ .~+ksQ August 5; 1996 Planning Cotmnission City of Central Point 155 South 2nd Street Central Point, OR 97502 re: Request for variance for Lot 54.(1382 Heather Lane), Valley Pouit Subdivision, Phase Il, Central Point, Oregon. submitted by: L. W. Bill Charley Construction. A. Considerations 1. The variance will provide provisions for the corner sight line for the traffic sight line on the corner of Beall Lane and Feather Lane: 2. The variance will have no significant adverse impact on the neighborhood. Lots in this subdivision have five foot side lot restrictions. I have requested a-six foot side lot variance to the north: 3. The variance will utilize properly within the intent and purpose of the zone district. 4. Circumstances affect the property in that it is the only lot. in the subdivision that is wider at the access than at the side yard, therefore creating the need for a variance:' 5. The variance is not self imposed. The house that my possible buyers want constructed on this lot necessitates this variance request. Thank you for your consideration, L. W. Bill Charley CYty of Central Point L+'GTT,7T77iT~' ttY'itt Planning Deparfm llCn~t S~' C;'rty of Cent~ar Poznt PX...~NNXNG DEPAKTMENT NOTICE OT PUBLIC HEARING Date of Notice: August 14, 1996 Hearing Date: Tuesday, September 3, 1996 Time: 7,:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: City of Central Point 155 South 2nd Central Point, Oregon NATI7RE OP HEARING>S mutes Bennett, AICP Planning Director Kcn Gcrsdilcr Planning Tcdmitian Sandy Lonvncl Planning Secretary Beginning at die above place and time, the Central Point Planrung Commission will conduct a public Bearing to review an Application for Zozting Variance submitted by Agent Bill Charley. Tlie zoning'variance request relates to reducing die required setbacks on die north property line from 10 feet fo 6 feet. Tlus project is located in die Residential' Two Family District (R-2), at die comer of Beall Lane and Heather Lane on Tax Lot 15400 of Jackson County Tax Assessor Map 372W 11DD. CRITERIA POR DECISION The criteria applicable to this land use decision is found in Chapter 17.80 of die Central Point Municipal Code which states that a variance maybe granted if findutgs are made that the following considerations do not apply to the proposed application: 1. The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city, such as beautification or safely; 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; 3. The variance will utilize property withirt the intent and purpose of the zoning district; 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same, zozung district; and 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed duough the applicant's own actions, nor tkte actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. 155 South Second Stxeet • 664-3321 • Fax (541) 664-6384. . • City o f Central Point E~'HIF~`I' tt~tt 1 Planning Department PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the beating scheduled for September 3, 1996. 2. Written comments should be sent to Central Point City Hall, 155 Soutlt 2nd Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502. Attentioiti: Jizit Bennett Issues which may provide dte basis for an appeal on dte matters shall be raised in writing- prior to dte expiration of dte comment period noted above. Arty testimony and tvritten comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to dte proposal acid should be stated clearly so drat the Planning Conunission can (fetter respond to those public concerns. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 Soudt Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of dte same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. Por additional information, dte public may contact Jim Bennett in dte Planning Departanent at (541) 664-3324. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At die public hearing, die Plaztniztg Commission will review die application, and technical staff reports, hear testimony from die applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear arguments on die application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to die criteria set forth above. At die conclusion of die review hearing, the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Application for Zoning Variance. City regulations provide drat die Central Point City Council be informed about all. Plaztzting Commission decisions at the regularly scheduled Council meeting foIlowing die decision date. The Council may, on its own motion, call for a review of the Planning Commission decision. Any party aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission mayrequest a review ofsuch action by the City Council by fdirtg a written appeal to die city no more than seven days after die date die city mails dte notice of decision. E~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 3, 1996 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Zone Map Amendment for 37 2W ] OC Tax Lots 4800, 4801, 4803 & 4804 from R-1-10, Residential Single-Family (10,000 sq. ft.),to R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 sq. ft.) Aoolicant; Wayne Christian 2821 Bullock Road Medford, OR 97501 Owner: Vincent & Kathy Mendolia 3524 Grant Road Central Point, OR 97502 Agent: 'Craig A. Stone & Assoc. Ltd. 708 Cardley Avenue `Medford,. OR 97504 Pro e / 37 2W l OC TL 4800 - 3.67 acres Zonine: 37 2W lOC TL 4801- 2.63 acres 37 2W ]OC TL 4803 - 2.62 acres 37 2W lOC TL 4804 - 2.59 acres R-1-10, Residential' Single-Family (10,000 sq. ft.) -Existing R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (.8,000 sq. ft.) -:Proposed Summary: The project consists of a Zone Map Amendment to change the .zoning designation of 1.1.51 acres from R-1-10, Residential Single-Family (10,000 sq. ftJ fo R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 sq. ft.) Authority CPMC 1.24 .020 invests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and. make recommendations to the City Council on amendments to the text and map. of the zoning ordinance. ~~ - A lic le- CPMC 1,24 Public Hearings Procedures. Law: CPMC 17.12 Zoning Districts CPMC 17.88 Amendment. City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. Back rg ound The subject property was recently annexed. to the City of Central Point under City Council Resolution No: 762. CPMC 17.12.06 states that the Comprehensive Plan includes a plan for future land uses within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Zoning Map is consistent with this plan and determines the zoning district into which a newly annexed area will be placed. The appropriate zoning district is applied to the area upon annexation. In this case, the subject property has been designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Low Density Residential and as R-1-10, Residential Single-Family (10,000 sq. ft.) on the Zoning Map, Accordingly; this zoning designation wasapplied to the subject property and became effective upon its annexation to the City of Central Point. Zone Map Amendment The proposed zone change from R-1-10 to R-1-8 is consistent with the existing land use designation for the property of Low Density. Residential. It would, however, permit the development of approximately 50 single-family dwellings on minimum 8,000 sq. ft. lots as opposed to 40 single-family dwellings on minimum 10,000 sq. ft. lots. The surrounding properties in the area are all presently zoned R-1-10 (Exhibit A). However, there are areas close by to the north (West Pine Villa) and east (Central Valley and Jackson Creek Estates) that are zoned R-1-8 and developed with single-family residential subdivisions. It is likely that the original R-1-10 zoning designation for properties in this area was to serve as a buffer and transition area between the small acreage rural residential properties west of Grant Road outside of the Urban Growth Boundary and the R-1-8 single-family residential subdivisions to the east. Findings of Fact The applicant has prepared documentation, findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of these applications (Exhibit B). Staff has reviewed these findings of fact and conclusions of law and has the following comments: 1. The applicant concludes that the zone change will allow the city to more efficiently provide for its long-term housing needs by allowing ten additional single-family dwellings to be built. Stafffinds that while this may allow the city to provide additional housing stock with which to meet its long-term housing needs, it should be carefully weighed against the intent of the present R-1-10 zoning to provide a large lot buffer and transition area between the small acreage rural residential lots west of Grant Road and the R-1-8 single-family residential subdivisions to the east. 44 2. The applicant concludes that the increase in density can be supported by existing. or planned public facilities and that it will help to defray the applicant's cost of extending water facilities to the property. Staff finds that while this may be true, it is not germane to the issue of whether a change in zoning from R-1-10 to R-1-8 is either necessary or appropriate. 3. The applicant concludes that the increase in density will postpone the time when the city will need to consider expanding the Urban Growth Boundary to provide for its long-term housing needs. Staff finds that while this may have some minimal. benefit to the city, it should .again be weighed against the intent of the present R-1-10 zoning in this area of the city. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: I : Recommend approval of the Zone Map Amendment to the City Council, based on the findings of fact, conclusions of law and staff comments contained in the staff report. . 2. Recommend denial of the Zone Map Amendment to the City Council, being unable to make the required finding of fact that the public health, safety,,welfare and convenience would be best served by the proposed amendment. 3. Continue the review of the Zone Map Amendment afthe discretion of the Commission. Exhibits ' A. Zoning Map B: Applicant's Findings of Fact 45 _-- ld~ -1 L;%HTBiT . ~, x-i-sl R-211 M-i I~Q 2~~~ i x -1- 46 P,X~iIBIT ~-. BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON IN THE MATTER OF ANNEXING FOUR ) PARCELS OF LAND CONSISTING OF ) 11.51 ACRES AND CHANGING THE ZONE ) FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL (SR-2.5) ) A JACKSON COUNTY ZONE, TO ) RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY (R-1-8) ) WHICH LAND IS SITUATED BETWEEN ) GRANT AND HANLEY ROADS AND ) NORTH OF BEALL LANE WITHIN THE ) THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT URBAN ) GROWTH BOUNDARY ) Wayne Christian: Applicant ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Exhibit 1 BACKGROUND AND INTENT; RELEVANT CRITERIA; EXHIBITS Section LA: IntenGof the Proposed Land Use Actions The following applications filed by Wayne Christian ("applicant") seeks approval by the. city of Central Point for the following land use actions: 1. Annexation of the subject property consisting of four tax lots and 11.51 acres to the. City of Central Point. 2. A zoning map amendment zone change-which changes the zoning of the property from SR 2.5 (Single Family Residential), a county zone, to Residential-Single Family (R-1-8). Section LB: ~ Procedures; Applicable Substantive Criteria Annexations are governed by Chapter 1:20 of the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC). Although there are filing requirements,.the CPMC contains no independent approval criteria which govern the annexation of territory to the city. However, a policy jointly adoptedby the city and 7ackson County as part of the 1984 Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Findings of Fact and Conclusions Page 1 Annexation2one Change ~~ ~ 1'