HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - November 4, 1997(f
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
November 4, 1997 - 7:00 p.m.
Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 406
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey,
and Karolyne Johnson
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
A. Review and approval of October 21, 1997, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
Page 1- 10 A. Review and recommendation regarding a street name change for a portion
of Pittview Avenue.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIIL ADJOIJRNMENT
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
October 21, 1997
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:03 P.M.
IL ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson. Angela
Curtis came in at 7:20 p.m. Candy Fish was absent. Also present were: Jim Bennett, City
Administrator, Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Arlene
LaRosa, Public Works Secretary
III. CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
IV. MINUTES
A. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion to approve the Minutes of October 7, 1997, as
written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes;
Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, abstain.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances.
VI. BUSINESS
~,, u ec~inw any rPrnmmPnrlation regarding amendment of CPMC Chanter 5.32 ep rtaining
to Mobile Home Parks
Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of amendment of
CPMC Chapter 5.32 pertaining to Mobile Home Parks per staff report.
Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Foster,
yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes.
$, RPVIPW and rPrommend ation reg arding a withd rawal of Annexation Territory from
Tarkcn_n C Wanly Rural Fire Protect ion District #3 (R-1-8 zoneu37 2W lOBA Tax Lots
6100 6200 & 6300~(Bu rkhart/F isher Annexati on)
Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report.
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 1997 -Page 2
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to recommend approval for withdrawal of
Annexation Territory from. Jackson County Rural Fire Protection District #3 (R-1-
8 zone) (37 2W lOBA Lots 6100, 6200, & 6300) (Burkhart/Fisher Annexation).
Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes;
Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes.
C, CnnrinnPA rPView and determination regarding a Tentative Plan for New Haven Estates
a 207 lot single-fami~ residential subdivision (R-1-8 zone) 36 2W 36C Tax Lots 2500
2501 & 2600. 37 2W O1B Tax Lot 3800~(Van ~ygy Homes Inc ,~pplicantl
There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parte communication
Tim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department StaffReport. He stated that there has
been another revision of this tentative plan that would be presented tonight.
Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Department StaffReport. He presented road
design configurations for New Haven Road, Hawthorne Way, and Naples Drive which
included bicycle lane(s) and parking restrictions.
Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing
Mike LaNier, agent for the applicant, 336 W. 6th St., Medford, OR, stated that they
concur with the Planning StaffReport. He stated that they do have some issues with the
Public Works Department StaffReport. He stated that (1) with regard to the length of
street blocks, Mr. Farber did a redesign of the tentative plan and that redesign is
submitted and entered into the record; (2) reimbursement on costs for oversizing the
water distribution system as credit toward water SDC's will work very well; (3) the
master plan works for them; (4) there will be no problem with expansion of the right-of-
way on Hamrick and Vilas Roads; (5) landscape buffers are not a problem, (6) they want
to construct a sound wall. Issues of concern: (1) they want to insure that the city
understands that they will construct the landscaping in the right-of--way, but the City will
take over the maintenance; (2) the traffic study - Mr. LaNier read into the record a letter
from Hardy Engineering addressing Public Works Department concerns; (3) they asked
the Commission to approve the revised tentative plat which has been submitted tonight.
Wayne Van Wey, 8700 Table Rock Road, Central Point, stated that they have revised
this plan several times and there are new standards presented tonight for the first time.
Herb Farber, surveyor for the project, 120 Mistletoe, Medford, OR stated that the
subdivision will generate approximately 1300 trips_ per day and that the streets are
designed to handle this volume. He read-into the record a fax from Kim Parducci of
Hardy Engineering concerning the street capacities. Mr. Farber stated that if bicycle
lanes are needed they will work with the City and satisfy the need without having to
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 1997 -Page 3
expand the right-of--way
Pat Havird, engineer for the project, 149 Josephine Ct., Central Point, OR. stated that
on page 6 under streets and traffic, item 2, a minimum street section has been required
that is different than the minimum called out in the Public Works Department standards
and requested that the minimum street section requirement be changed to be consistent
with the current standard.
Lee Brennan stated that the rolled curb sections and associated street section
requirements should betaken out of the staff report and vertical curbs and associated
street section requirements be substituted.
Jo Ann Allen, 12575 Highway 62, Eagle Point, OR. stated that the schools are already
overcrowded and new subdivisions add more children. She also stated she did not like
the no parking restrictions on streets.
Herb Farber stated that they stipulate to bike lanes on New Haven Road and Naples
Drive. Through no parking or off-street parking, they can accommodate everything
within the rights-of--way indicated.on the tentative plan.
Lee Brennan stated that if both 8 ft. parking lanes and the 2 foot water Tine easement on
the west side ofNaples Drive are eliminated, the right-of--way needed can be reduced
to 60 feet on the portion ofNaples Drive between Vilas Road and St. James Way and to
50 feet on the northern portion ofNaples Drive.
Chairman Piland closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Dunlap reviewed the letter from Glenn Higinbotham, Jr. in the packet.
Herb Farber stated that they are working with Mr. Higinbotham.
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 403 approving a
Tentative Plan for New Haven Estates, a 207-lot single family residential
subdivision (R-1-8 zone) (36 2W 3GC Tax Lots 2500, 2501, & 2600; 37 2W OIB Tax
Lots 3800) (Van Wey Homes, Inc., applicattj) with stipulations or street widths per
~._~~,
staff comments 6i g the publi -Bearing hat includ (1) bike nes in both
directions on pies Dr' , Ha thorne A'y and Neaven Roa , (2) a 60 foot
right-of-wa on ap es Drve exwR Vilas Road a ~._~.t.EJ mes Way with no
parking on both sides of the street and eliminating the provision for water service
meters on the west side of the street, (3) a 50 foot right-of--way on Naples Drive
between St. James Way and Rabun Way with no parking on both sides of the
street and eliminating the provision for water service meters on the west side of the
street, (4) a 50 foot right-of--way on Hawthorne Way with no parking on both sides
of the street; and (5) a 60 foot right-of--way on New Haven Road with no parking
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 1997 -Page 4
on both sides of the street. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL
CALL: Curtis, yes; Dunlap, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes.
D. Review and determination regarding a Tentative Plan for Lindsey Meadows, a 21-lot
single-family residential subdivision. (R-1-6 zoneL(37 2W lODA Tax Lot 500 600 &
?00) (Richard Voigtman ~ lin cant)
There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parte communication.
Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report.
Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Stafl' Report. He stated that the building
department has a stipulation concerning fill placement and geotechnical concerns which
would be added to the Public Works staff report. He read the addition into the record.
Darrell Cooper, 1500 Spring Street, Medford, OR, applicant stated he has no problems
stipulating to everything covered in the Staff Reports.
Conunissioner Gilkey asked the applicant if he was going to include in his CC& Rs that
this subdivision is located next to an industrial area and they will not be able to complain
of any associated problems at a later date.
Mr. Cooper stated he would include that in his CC&R's.
Walt Frohreich, 5100 Dark Hollow Road, Medford, OR. stated that he owned property
at 3470 Chicory Lane, on the east side of Chicory from this subdivision entrance. He is
concerned about flooding in that area.
Virginia Brown Petko, 3365 Snowy Butte Lane, Central Point, distributed pictures of
Chicory Lane during a flood and was concerned about the drainage.
Mr. Cooper stated that he will work with the neighbors concerning their drainage
problems. He stated he would stipulate to extend the unnamed lane off Shanthi Lane
another 25 feet and make it a 30 foot right-of--way so that there will be no flag lots.
Lee Brennan requested that the name Shanthi Lane be changed from Lane since it does
not fit the criteria for a residential lane.
Mr. Cooper stated he would change the name.
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 1997 -Page 5
including all conditions in the staff reports and staff comments and adding a
condition that the subdivision CC&R's notify buyers that the subdivision is
abutting a light industrial zone. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap.
ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes; Dunlap, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes.
Chairman Piland called a recess at 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Dunlap left the meeting.
Chairman Piland called the meeting back to order at 9:47 p.m.
E. Review and determination regarding a Tentative Plan for Shelterwood a 26-lot single-
family residential subdivision (R-2 zone) (37 2W 11D Tax Lot 16001 (Michael Sullivan
i n
There were no conflicts of interest or ex-pane communication.
Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report.
Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Department Stall' Report. Lee stated that on
item 10 on page 3 concerning the accurate location of utilities, at the beginning of the
paragraph add "As feasible" and "pertaining to City rights-of--way and easements" at the
end of the paragraph.
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to extend the meeting beyond 10:00 p.m. Motion
was seconded by Commissioner Johnson. All said "aye" and the motion passed.
Lee Brennan stated that the building requirement concerning fill placement and
geotechnical concerns will be added to the conditions of the staff report.
Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe, Medford, OR, agent for the applicant, stated that they
stipulate that they will have deed restrictions to restrict the development of property to
single-family. He stated that they concur with the staff reports. He stated that they will
stipulate to concrete approaches on the residential lanes to cut down on cut-through
traffic.
Mike Sullivan, applicant, 3784 Coleman Creek Road, Medford, OR stated that they are
proposing 7 foot sidewalks on the residential lanes.
Ruth Campbell, 3252 Bursell, Central Point, OR expressed concern regarding the
removal of the wild pheasants in the area. She also stated that she did not want 2-story
houses.
Ernest Brewer, 3296 Bursell, Central Point, OR. stated that Mr. Sullivan has purchased
1 acre of property from him and he has specified in his contract of sale that houses on
this property will be single family and one-story.
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
October 21, 1997 -Page 6
Jack Beale, 3344 Bursell, Central Point, OR. stated that Mr. Sullivan is purchasing
property from him and the sale contract indicates they will be single family homes.
Herb Farber stated that they can stipulate to single-story homes.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 405 approving a
Tentative Plan for Slielterwood, a 26-lot single-family residential subdivision. (R-2
zone) (37 2W 11D Tax Lot 1600) (Michael Sullivan, applicant) including conditions
in the staff reports, and adding conditions requiring (1) single-family, one-story
homes and (2) sidewalk on the south side of Greenleaf Lane only with a cross walk
in the area of Lots 11 & 12 to the south side of Greenleaf Lane. Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey,
yes; Johnson, yes.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Jim Bennett discussed the street addressing problem on Pittview Avenue and future agendas.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Curtis.
All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 10:37 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 4, 1997
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Bennett, City Administrator
SUBJECT: Review and recommendation regarding a street name change for Pittview Avenue or
portion(s) thereof.
Summary
There is presently a street addressing problem on Pittview Avenue. There are two 900 blocks on
Pittview Avenue and many o£the cunent addresses onPittview Avenue are not consistent with the
City's street numbering ordinance. One option for correcting the street addressing problem is to
rename Pittview Avenue or portion(s) thereof. ORS 227.120 governs the procedure for renaming
streets and provides that if the Planning Commission finds it in the best interest of the city. to rename
a street, it shall make a recommendation to that effect to the City Council. (Exhibit A)
Background
The history of the addressing of Pittview Avenue goes back almost seventy years. The original
Pittview Subdivision was approved by the Jackson County Board of Commissioners in 1930.
Pittview Avenue ran from approximately where Marilee Street intersects Pittview Avenue westward
to what is now Bursell Road. Addresses were assigned to properties along Pittview Avenue
beginning at about the 500 block and increasing to the 800 block at Bursell Road.
Pittview Avenue was extended across Bursell Road to connect with Edella Avenue in 1981 as part
of the annexation and development of the Suncreek Subdivision. It was addressed as the 900 block
of Pittview Avenue to match the existing County addresses to the east. In 1984 and 1985, the rest
of Pittview Avenue to the east and the surrounding area, almost 200 acres, was also annexed to the
city.
As Pittview Avenue was extended to the east with the. development of the Forest Glen Subdivision,
new properties were addressed in accordance with the City's street numbering ordinance. This
ordinance was adopted in 1950. It states that the city will use Front Street and Pine Street as the
bases for addressing and thathouse numbers will run outward from theses streets beginning at 100.
This is the opposite of the way that the County numbers ran on Pittview Avenue. This resulted in
street numbers that ran in two different directions and two 900 blocks on Pittview Avenue.
1
Discussion
The City was contacted by the U.S. Postal Service in Central Point regarding problems that they
have been having with the addressing on Pittview Avenue, particularly for substitute mail carriers.
The City then contacted other affected agencies to determine the scope of the problem. Responses
were received from the Jackson County Fire District #3 and the U.S. Postal Service. These
responses reflected the primary concern that city, postal, fire protection and emergency medical
services be provided to the public in an efficient and !timely way. (Exhibit B) The City Utility
Department has also experienced problems with locating accounts and processing service orders for
customers on Pittview Avenue.
Staff has developed a number of options to resolve the addressing problems. These include, but are
not limited to, the following:
1. Renaming of the portion of Pittview Avenue west of Bursell Road to Pittview Court. Apoll
of the residents of this portion of Pittview Avenue was conducted by the Police Department.
(Exhibit C),
2. Renaming of the portion of Pittview Avenue west of Burrell Road to West Pittview Avenue
and the portion of Pittview Avenue east of Burrell Road to EastPittview Avenue.
3. Renaming of the portion of Pittview Avenue west of Marilee Street to West Pittview Avenue
and the portion of Pittview Avenue east of Marilee Street to East Pittview Avenue.
4. Renumbering of the street addresses on Pittview Avenue west of Marilee Street to be
consistent with the City's street numbering ordinance.
No action.
It should be noted that the City Council reviewed this addressing problem at their meeting of April
20, 1995. However, at that meeting, the only option discussed was the renumbering of all street
addresses on Pittview Avenue that ran contrary to the City street numbering system. A number of
residents onPittview Avenue testified at the meeting and asked the City Council to leave the street
numbers as they were. The City Council took no action on the renumbering proposal.
Although notice of the Planning Commission's review of a proposal to rename a street is not
required by statute, a notice of this hearing was prepared and mailed to all residents and property
owners of property located on Pittview Avenue. A corrected notice was also subsequently mailed
to residents and property owners which included the time and location of the Planning Commission
meeting. (Exhibit D)
Recommendation
If the Planning Commission determines that it is in the best interest of the city to rename Pittview
Avenue or portion(s) thereof, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City
Council. This recommendation may include any options that the Planning Commission feels deserve
consideration by the City Council to that end..
Attachments
A. ORS 227.120
B. Agency Responses
C. ' Poll Results
D. Hearing Notices
EXHIBIT ~ ~~~
227.110
CITIES
and public buildings to commission; re-
port. All subdivision plats located within the
city limits, and all plans or plats for vacating
or laying out, widening, extending, parking
and locating streets or plans for public
buildings shall first be submitted to the
commission by the. city engineer or other
proper municipal officer, and a report
thereon from the commission secured in
writing before approval is given by the
§26jper municipal official. [Amended by 1955 c.75s
§ 227.110 City approval required prior to
recording of subdivision plats and plats
or deeds dedicating land to public use
within six miles of city; exception.. (1) All
subdivision plats and all plats or deeds dedi-
cating land to public use in that portion of
a county within six miles outside the limits
of any city shall first be submitted to the city
planning commission or, if no such commis-
sion exists, to the city engineer of the city
and approved by the commission or engineer
before they shall be recorded. However, un-
less otherwise provided in an urban growth
area management agreement ointly adopted
by a city and county to estab~ish procedures
for regulating land use outside the city limits
and within an urban growth boundary ac-
knowledged under ORS 197.251, if the county
governing body has adopted ordinances or
regulations for subdivisions and partitions
under ORS 92.044, land within the six-mile
limit shall be under the jurisdiction of the
county for those purposes.
(2) It shall be unlawful to receive or re-
cord such plat or replat or deed in any public
office unless the same bears thereon the ap-
proval, by indorsement, of such commission
or city engineer. However, the indorsement
of the commission or city engineer of the
city with boundaries nearest the land such
document affects shall satisfy the require-
ments of this section in case the boundaries
of more than one city ai•e within six miles
of the property so mapped or described. If the
governing bodies of such cities mutually
agree upon a boundary line establishing the
limits of the jurisdiction of the cities other
than the line equidistant between the cities
and file the agreement with the recording
officer of the county containing such boun-
dary line, the boundary line mutually agreed
upon shall become the limit of the jurisdic-
tion of each city until superseded by a new
agreement between the cities or until one of
the cities files with such recording officer a
written notification stating that the agree-
ment shall no longer apply. [Amended by 1955
c.766 §27; 1983 c.570 §5; 1991 c.763 §261
227.120 Procedure and approval for
renaming streets. Within six miles of the
limits of any city, the commission, if there is
one, or if no such commission legally exists,
then the city engineer, shall recommend to
the city council the renaming of any existing
street, highway or road, other than a county
road or state highway, if in the judgment of
the commission, or if no such commission
legally exists, then in the .judgment of the
city engineer, such renaming is in the beat
interest of the city and the six mile area.
Upon receiving such recommendation the
council shall afford persons particularly in-
terested, and the general public, an oppoitu-
nity to be heard, at a time and place to be
specified in a notice of hearing published in
a newspaper of general circulation within
the municipality and the six mile area not
less than once within the week prior to the
week within which the hearing is-to be held.
After such opportunity for hearin has been
afforded, the city council by ordinance shall
rename the street or highway in accordance
with the recommendation or by resolution
shall reject the recommendation. Acertified
copy of each such ordinance shall be filed for
record with the county clerk or recorder, and
a like copy shall be filed with the county as-
sessor and county surveyor. The county sur-
veyor shall enter the new names of such
streets and roads in red ink on any filed plat
and tracing thereof which may be affected,
together with appropriate notations concern-
ing the same.
227.130 (Repealedby 1975 c.767 §161
227.140 [Repealed by 1975 c.767 §161
227.160 [Repealed by 1975 c.767 §161
PLANNING AND ZONING
HEARINGS AND REVIEW
227.160 Definitions for ORS 227.160 to
227.185. As used in ORS 227.160 to 227.185:
(1) "Hearings officer" means a planning
and zoning hearings officer appointed or des-
ignated by a city council under ORS 227.165.
(2) "Permit" means discretionary ap-
proval of a proposed development of land,
under ORS 227.215 or city legislation or reg-
ulation. "Permit" does not include:
(a) A limited land use decision as defined
in ORS 197.015;
(b) A decision which determines the ap-
propriate zoning classification for a partic-
ular use by applying criteria or performance
standards defining the uses permitted within
the zone, and the determination applies only
to land within an urban growth boundary;
(c) A decision which determines final en-
gineering design, construction, operation,
maintenance, repair or preservation of a
transportation facility which is otherwise
authorized by and consistent with the com-
prehensive plan and land use regulations; or
Title 21 Page 116 A (1995 Edition)
facsimile EXHIBIT ~_.,
TRANSMITTAL
to: ]~.oia ~e)+~enedeEEi
f~ #: 664-6384 •
re: ~iEEview 1~ve - proposed name change
daEe: duly 28. )L997
pages:. ~, including Ehis cover sheeE. .
'hank you for aslang for our commen£a on Ehis suhjecE..t~s you know, Ehe mosE
importanE aspecE of our emergency delivery sysEem is Ehe abiliEy Eo respond in Ehe
fasEesE mosE direcE rouEe Eo Elie emergency. ~lheneves Ehere is confusion as Eo
where or who we are responding Eo, iE can creaEe a•delay, which may r~sulEs in
Higher risk Eo peraonQsl in need of our assisEance.
B'he )i ire &.Y1sEr1CE would bo in favor of re-numbering Ehe :eaisLing addresses or
changing Ehe sEreeE name, wesE of f$ursell Rd. phis would eliminaEe Ehe
confusi®n ®f a caller identifying Ehe sEreeE as "~iEEvie~ `; during Ehe. chaotic phase
of reporting an emergency. ,
5
SUPERVISOR CUSTOMER SERVICE
USPS
~~~~++++ UNITEDSTLlTES
~POST/~L SERVICE
August 30, 1997
City of Central Point
Building Department
155 S Second Street
Central Point Or 97502
Dear Lois DeBenedetti:
I must first apologize for the slow response to your letter of July 25, 1997. The problem that the Postal
Service is encountering with the two blocks of Pittview are ih the office where we prepare the mail for
delivery. Our neighborhood boxing units that house the mail are seperated on our case with two
numbers. The beginning number and the ending. number in the box As you can see, we don't know
where to,&ase tfie.mail when.there is a spbstitute carrlee.on, the, route.
The 900 block on the east side of Bursell road is on the case as 921 to 997 . This leaves out 5 other
address. The west side of Bursell is 900 to 928 Pittview leaving 10 other numbers missing. The
reason fo['the labeling on the case is because we have too manydeliverines for the the case in-order
to have all the numbers on the case. I
The emergency service is also of major concern. If a person is having a medical emergencyand
lives at 920 pittview then how many times will they be dispatched to the wrong side ofBursell.
In closing I would like to make it very clearlhat until such time as all mail can be sorted by machine
we will continue to have problems with this addressing the way it is. The Postal Service will provide
customers with the proper forms for changing their addresses. We can even see that their change of
address information to publications are sent free if they bring them to. us.
Respectfully,
,,9n
Howard Leachman
Supervisor Customer Service
826 E. PINE Sr.
CENTRAL POINT OR. 97502-8886
(641)776-1340
FAX:
L~ry_rtBIT C. ,'am
TO: Chief Hancock
FROM: Sgt. McPherson
DATE: 9-3-97
.'SUBJECT: Pitriiew Avenue
As requested, I conducted a neighborhood poll of the residents on Pitriiew Avenue, west of
Bursell Road. I contacted residents at all but three homes on the street. In summary, I
would say that none of the people are happy with the thought, but the majority will accept
the name change to Pitriiew Court, if it will close the issue.
The basic numbers are as follows; (9) individuals said that they would accept the name
change, with some reservations, mostly about the effect on the mail. There were (3)
individuals who were adamantly opposed to the name change. They all seemed to be
unhappy with them having to make the change as opposed to the other side making the
change. One couple was in the process of moving and wasn't available for comments, but
were opposed to the number changes last time the issue came up.
Three residentswere not home to be polled.
900 Pitriiew Ave. , 664-4116, Chris Bryant was not opposed to the name change saying,
"From a sells point of view, it sounds good."
Geri Bryant, Chris's wife, was opposed to the name change and said, "I
like Avenue, it has been Avenue from the beginning."
Ralph Bryant, Chris's father, was adamantly opposed to the change
and said,"I like Avenue." besides, "we had a meeting about this two
years ago:'
904 Pitriiew Ave., 664-5087, Rick Wooton, initially was not for the change, but in talking,
changed his mind and said, "if it doesn't effect the mail, I don't have
that big a problem with it" He also said, "my only complaint is with
the inconvenience of changing the mail." Mr. Wooten's wife agreed
with him.
908 Pitriiew Ave., No one was home.
912 Pitriiew Ave., 664-7459, Kevin Coffin, son of the owner advised that his parents. are in
the process of moving. He said that the last time this came up, both of
his parents were opposed to changing the numbers as it would have
Gltl'ected his business.
7
916 Pittview Ave., 664-4423, Cindy Williams, said that she would not oppose the name
change. She said, "my opinion is that's fine." She went onto say,
"I would prefer that the other side would change, but it's okay."
She expressed some concern about how it would effect her mail.
920 Pittiview Ave., 664-3211, Bruce Ascuena, said that he would agree to the name change.
He said, "I don't see any problems, I did oppose changing the
numbers." He then said, "put me down for it, if it will help your job, it
will be okay."
Kathy Asuena, his wife agreed with 1VIr. Ascuena.
924 Pittview Ave., No one was home.
928 Pittview Ave., Bill Edmunson, thought it would. be alright to change the name. He
said, "I don't really care, it's fine, it's not that big of a deal."
913 Pittview Ave., No one was home..
909 Pittview Ave., Jack Groves, was adamantly opposed to the name change, saying, "no!"
He went onto explain, "it would require a lot of changes." He then said,
"if something is done, the other side needs to do it." He said, "we were
here first, the addition should make the change."
905 Pittview Ave., Diana Minor, initially wasn't sure, but after talking with her husband
Mark, she would accept the change, saying, "basically, I'm opposed to
it, but as long as it changes over a period of time, so I can get my mail
and business things in order."
Mark Minor, her husband, was opposed to the name change initially,
saying, "bad idea," but while talking with me, he decided to accept the
change, saying, "I'm opposed to it but, I'll go along with it." He then
.said, "it still is a hassle."
901 Pittview Ave.s No one was home.
8
EXHIBIT
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF
PROPERTY LOCATED ON PITTVIEW AVENUE
On Tuesday, November 4, 1997, the Central Point Planning Commission will hold a
hearing to consider options to correct a street addressing problem that exists on Pittview
Avenue. These options may include, but are not limited to, the renaming or readdressing
of Pittview Avenue or portion(s) thereof as follows:
1. Renaming the portion of Pittview Avenue west of Bursell Road to Pittview Court.
2. Renaming the portion of Pittview Avenue west of Bursell Road to West Pittview
Avenue. and the portion of Pittview. Avenue east of Bursell Road to East Pittview
Avenue.
3. Renaming the portion of Pittview Avenue west of Marilee Street to West Pittview
Avenue and the portion of Pittview Avenue east of Marilee Street to East Pittview
Avenue.
4. Renumbering the street addresses on Pittview Avenue west of Marilee Street to be
consistent with the City's street numbering ordinarice.
5. No action.
All residents and property owners of property on Pittview Avenue are invited to attend
this meeting to comment upon any of the proposed options and to offer any other
comments that will assist the Planning Commission in arriving at a decision as to the. best
way to resolve the street addressing problem.
For more information, contact Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official, at 664-3321, ext. 253.
N~
City of Central Point
Administrative/Planning Department
James H. Bennett, AICP
Clty Adminlstrator
Ken Gerschler
Planning Technician
Deanna Gregory
Adminlstrative/Plann/ng Secretary
**CORRECTED**
NOTICE TO RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS OF
.PROPERTY:LOCATED ON PITTVIEW AVENUE
The hearing Notice previously mailed to residents andproperty owners of property located on
Pittview Avenue regarding the Central Point Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday,
November 4, 1997, did not include the time and location of the meeting. -The Planning
Commission meeting will be:
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Where: Central Point City Council Chambers
155 South Second Street
Central Point OR
For more information, contact Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official, at 664-3321, ext. 253.
J H. -Bennett, AICP
C y Administrator
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax (541)664-6384
10