Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMiscellaneous Correspondence 1983-11-7 , I .' . . , I ,. , .\ ,. ... i1h{n To whom it my concern: I Peter iU'yl,. am rel>uired by the building department. to blacktop the. alley. in back ot; my .propert.Y.,""which-is--.-,n._... .. I . . . . located at 1.100.Main.~t. __ I , I .l.woul~ l~~e :to get an extention on this requirement. 1 ----.- -+_._-- . _____H___ because there i..s no storm sewer :loca ted in the alley and . . the drainage is. very complica ted to desii:n-:--The:'cb:urch-'-:;-"--':-~"" I .... r.... which. is .next .to me, ..isalso required to .black_top_tbeir ,. ..... I .... portion of the alley..' Because ~f the drainage problem . . . . I .....h...._.._._..~-c-:n_...._.u_n__. we will have .to work togethero~, this project. I have eon- tacted'th~':churcli';iodiscu5s-thls--a.lid"we mdil anagreemeiit....--_. I .. . .tha t. we will do this project together. We feeln we can .do a. much better job, and it will be easier if it. i.s. ~olle_~~-:. gether. Also if only a portion is done and the re~t is left uncompleted the gravel will tea,; up the new blacKtop when' _.. people drive on it. The church has already got an extention on tl!iS..Wl'4!~...._.. they will need. to use the a lley for thei.rplllZpose or build. . .. . - ._--_.'-----~~-- '--- -~--_.-,-- a new building. 'l'hey are requir~d to blacktop onJ.,y. a:.portion .of the alley withinh6 months, whicli-is. 't.he-farnside}.from . I ~ .' ' ..( . ---..1 . , I my. property. ._--c.._-.._~-~.-,-":':".'-._.._.n My business wiHnot require any, use oftbe alley. at "".' ".:. ! ". _____..__._.__c.~___....__~__ 1 all. I would like to get the engineer design done now, and' .., ... , . . I do the actual blacktopping together witbthir 'Churcb-wh~':::'7t .. 'J they are doing their completed Project.~ .... !'.~..:. ......,. ,. ~._.1(,. .... .,'.. , . n . Thank you, . I -t)incerely- .u___~___ .~- , ... ~1L:i. -7--_...::.._..:..;..:.--......:~.:.~. n. I - ._,' , . . to", -- _ ~'! _ -. --. -- _ --~~----:--~ --- ------ , .,'- . ' _ __ ~___ __u.,_~_._ __ ___.__.. ._. _ ____._ . . ---:-~("~-'~-...>.---;-.,'. '. ;1 ;>:~ < ~:.. ..~,':~' " . ,':-.r .~_._. ---;--'j c . . . . . . . __ .":'. . . i_c.:...' ._..... .~ ~ .,.::.;... . --. I 'I . '~ , .-...-....... 1100 'BYPASS 8000 , ...... ,. . .~ II i I I' ~ I' I I I I. I I I I . ~KlO J t 'j !. '--- ----1 -' . --~ 'l~ - ..- 3 I ';00 ~ 1';00 e~ :' ~ ~ t ~ .roo .600 .. o' STREETt.1 ~:. '\ . E-. ~ ~~.V":lo. & ------;;------, -- _.. . II. r .. ..... .. .'. ... : . I ., I I. " 100 I &.t f ~ . ' "''/, I ; iI ZOI'~"~' .. I I , I I .1 I ~,.... -i". e.r :;)r"Il't\;trl~L." --- 1'0" ., I ..00 I 1100 I" ....-7f/;..~. .~ 'D' ~ ..00 " J.. I.___.'l ; i <00. ~'O" .~ W c:J'-. -~ .,...._J 0:: 1 . I- . Ul '- ---- .----_.- -..- ,__....... .___.m.. ... .... 1705 I' ". ~. -~........ -. --,. ! -.-.--- .... ,._---~ --------. I L ''j ~. 6600 I I 1 , . . ~ 6!lOO . - ,~. . .- ......"l\Ic-..... ----.r.-. -"-SOU'%.I~A L -wl.-..,) "---- . '\ ~ I .j <:("0 ;, CO\J ~ '001 r.\\ - 'f\t:_ ' " ( .----- " 0400 I , ,__ ~'I .. _' .'.. ..:.....:... ~ C~ ~ ..:.... _ lorl .. 1~~"'_ - .:;...._.-~. 40" ..., 0200 I '5000 4900 ..00 4100 4600 ..~ .. 40C UOO .. 200 4100 4000 . i' " ,.., .. · "Jl".t . '< i . ... F ,'. i"1 ~', If!'I - . I '. . . I I '. . . ~ ~.! I.V ! ! I I J :J:; 31100 ~ --.-. L ." lO> ->- ) 19 00 l- . ~ I .. ....... . .:: \ - -' fJ ':'f.. ~ I 5WCool" ~ BRATTAI _ .' .'. _:_ " - N BRATTAIJ .~. 7 SUB TO SPRINGflELU x - - t - o.Lc:.'*:I.6il ~~..Jf1.kJ~JloJli..u:aJJ).JZ";~-':'~ - '-" ); MAIN.. .--.. ____....._'" _ 'T-"-T-.....-- ,- "\_T_"'T~"'T- ,_""Iii-or Hwc.r'J. . BRIGGS 1':"". 'LC.Ho. I.') ,- "I ',:.5300 I II" . I I I .1 I I I I 7500 i 6700 ~! ": fUOO -. 5500 ...~- 41"- 7600 I .1 ~. ..-. -..- 11'10 . -1(:19 - J-91." ~, "'S ,5700 ,,5800 ~901; 6801 ..' 17100 '"1 ~ " tIt , ,I I ;_...,t---;6a;lC ~ ~ 7000.. 5.00 62.OC;!..eoo, I ", r;' \1\ __.,.....-.:., . I I~ 12 . 5400 \ ~ ~--_! ! 7)00 7200 -.,' ~ "00 , -. " Foo i u~ S3O: ~400 "00 Z7lX 2IlOO 2.900 ~ooo .I - ,eoo 5100 ""'" .." - STREET " ~ ,;" -;;.;; ii 'a~;;:;;;-=-p ,";;" ~ ..;;, r;; f -I . I I ! I I '00 I _' I I _ _. I ... _" __ -. I ,...Ih, '701" , 4 LANE COUNlY '--'00' :I:' 1-.0 ~\ t;.. . ( " . 2400 I i I . 12'00 ..... i2100 W', ....l 0:: ,UOO I' ..... ' ' _' k... . Ul . .. A ~. JI 'I , . . . o . . o t . . . " \ e . Jackie r'1urdoch completed the staff presentation by outlining the criteria the Planning Commission needed to consider in deciding the issue and pointed out the location of the property on the map. There were no questions of staff and the public hearing was opened. Ronald Widdifield, 900 N. 22nd Street, said that he would like the Planning Commission to grant the CUP as he felt that the addition of a security guard on the property would be an asset to the community. No one else spoke for or against the request and the hearing was closed. MOTION: Lee Beyer moved for approval of the request with the conditions and findings of fact listed in the staff report. Steve Cornacchia seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Findings: 1. That the applicant's request meets the specification listed. in OAR 23-005 through 28-815 relating-to construction standards for mobile homes used as a residence when an employe~ requires 24 hour-a-day presence on property. 2. That the site can accommodate this use. 3. That the site abuts an adequate highway. 4. That the use is compatible to abutting property. ( Cond it ions: " 1. Approval by the Development Review Coordination Board. Plan to show placement of mobile home on property fronting South "B" Street and acreening of business from South "A" Street. 2. Applicant to obtain all applicable permits for placement and hookups for the mobile home, 3. Mobile home must be State certified as a dwelling unit. 4, Review in 5 years' time. B. .SPRINGFIELD CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN (Journal No. S-83-11-35) Assessor's Map 17-03-34-41 Tax Lots 4600, 4700, 4300, 4900. Located at 1072-1096 Main Street. The applicant is requesting a modification of a Special Use Permit (SUP) which was granted on December 1, 1982. The SUP was granted to allow conversion of an existing motel and multi-family units to a church and day care facility in the CC Community Commercial District. The applicant is appealing conditior. 3 of the SUP which reads: "Pave alley to east property line" and condition 4 which reads "R~place two mercury vapor lights with LPS lights." The applicant is also requesting a variance to Section 16.02(F) of the Springfield Zoning Code which requires paving of off-street parking spaces. .l:.' MINUTES, Planning Commission, 11/2/83 ------------------------------------~--Page 2 ., / ; , J (, (( ; e . Greg Mott gave the staff presentation on this item and said that the Church staff had appeared twice before the Planning Commission since receiving the SUP, once in a public hearing and once at a work session and had not expressed concern regarding these conditions at either meeting. Greg said that it was his understanding that the Church staff was planning to use an existing facility on the property for a church and to construct a new church sometime in the future. He also said that staff felt that the alley paving needed to occur as originally planned and not be delayed but that the vapor light conditions should be dropped as the applicants would not be required to install it as this would be installed as part of a Federally-funded program. ' Greg Shaver brought up the question of why the adult bookstore in the same block had not been required to pave the alley behind their store. Greg Mott responded that this condition had not been attached to that request because the business was not encouraged to use the alley. Len Blackstone inquired if the church had access to the alley and if they didn't use the alley, could the condition requiring paving of the alley be . removed? Greg Mott responded that he really didn't know if this would be possible and that he felt the church needed access to the alley for safety purposes. Jack Gischel asked if it was known how much it would cost for the church to pave the alley and staff did not know. Gayle Decker asked if the church paved their portion of the alley, wouldn't there still be a.section unpaved between the church and the Selco Credit Union? Greg Mott said that this would be the case. Joe Allison said that he had driven the alley and found it barely passable and felt that the church would not get.much use of it in its current condition. Kevin Roberts said that the Springfield Code requires paving of parking lots '... and alleys in the city and that the Zoning Code had similar reguirements. He said that the staff tried to enforce minimum standards for paving and suggested that if the Planning Commission decided to grant relief from the paving conditions that they should require a fence to block access from church property to the alley. Lee Beyer inquired about what kind of problems there would be if the church only used Main Street for access to their property? Kevin responded that there was room on the property for a flow pattern that would allow traffic good return access to Main Street so that it wouldn't be a problem~ He also reiterated that a federal progra~ would take care of the vapor light problem. Ralph Johnston from LARAPA said that he had also driven the alley and would not like to do it often. He said that LARAPA liked to reduce dust particulates in the air and that road-dust from unpaved streets and alleys counted for 25j; of this type of pollution. He recom~ended that the Planning Commission require that the alley and parking lot be paved. I.1JfWTES, Pl anni ng Commi ss i on, 11 /2/83 __uu_u___n__unnunn_n~__nn_Page 3 I e . The public hearing was opened. Dale Seese, 241 West "K" Street, representing the church, presented a memo and a map to the Planning Commission. In the memo Mr. Seese indicated that the church was not seeking relief fro~ ever paving the alley, but to reschedule the timing required for the paving of the alley. He mentioned in his presentation that the church would be willing to pave all but the 155 feet of the alley. He said that if they paved fro~ the western side from the Selco Credit Union to approximately the center portion of the church property that this would take in a section of the alley that belonged to another property owner and would reach to the portion of church property where the church would be taking access to the alley. The other 155 feet of alley to the east could be paved in the future when the church structure was completed and after the engineering of drainage could be accomplished. (COPIES OF THE MAP AND MEMO ARE ATTACHMENTS A, B, AND C). Joe Allison and Len Blackstone both asked Mr. Seese if they were understanding his request which they had interpreted to mean that the church was willing to pave from the Selco property to the center of the church property, and he responded that this was the case. . Jack Gischel asked Mr. Seese how much it was anticipated to cost to pave all of their portion of the alley and he responded that they esti~ated the cost to be between $12,000 to $18,000. He also responded that it was estimated to cost $7,000 for the portion of the alley he was proposing to pave at this time. c ~ Others who spoke in favor of the Planning Commission granting relief from paving all of the alley were: Bi 11 Ei kenberry, 4019 Oregon Street. Carl Seese, lives near church. Fred Tepford, 1380 Baily St. Eugene. Greg Winterowd said it was reasonable to pave to street but leave other part until future building. Lee Beyer asked if the city does paving in winter? Kevin Roberts reponded that they did if hot mix was available but that the hot mix plant closed down once they did not have enough orders. Dale Seese reponded to a question regarding why the church hadn't done the paving the past summer by saying that their building plans had changed and they wanted to wait until the remodeling plans were more complete. Lee Beyer asked if the church was delaying paving because of money or the weather. Mr. Seese said mostly on account of the weather. Steve Cornacchia asked ~r. Seese why the church was anxious to moved into another building on the property to use for services rather than go ahead and construct the new church. r1r. Seese responded that the church they had occupied had been the victim of arson and that they were using another room at the site that did not fit their needs. If they moved from the site of the old churcil they cou 1 d sell the property and use the funds for a new church building at this new site. MINUTES, Planning Commlssion, 11/2/83 --------------------------------------Page 4 l. , e . , / } The public hearing was closed. MOTION: Greg Shaver said that he would offer a motion for relief of the condition regarding the installation of the LPS lights before the Commission considered the issue of paving the alley. Jack Gischel seconded the motion and it was unanimously approved. Consideration of the paving of the alley: MOTI ON: Greg Shaver said that he favors paving - but paving with sense. He said that the city would be receiving a bonus to allow the church to pave from Selco to the center of the property by getting a section of the alley not owned by the church paved. He said that he favored the church starting paving the alley as quickly as possible and completing the entire alley withi n 2 years. Greg Shaver moved that the church pave from the east end of the Selco property, approximately 175' of alley to the center of the church property beginning at the earliest possible date andcompleting this portion by June 15, 1984. The time line for completing the paving of the enti re alley to be ,June 15, 1 986 or before taki ng occupancy of the new church building. Lee Beyer ieconded the motion. He said this would be a win/win situation for the church and the city. Len Blackstone asked Mr. Seese if this time line would be favorable to the church and he responded that it was agreeable, f( Steve Cornacchia said that he was not in favor of waiting for the paving. Len Blackstone asked what would be the minimum time needed to pave the 175'. Mr Seese said that he did not know because he did not have any experience in this field and did not know about the availability of the hot mix. . , Kevin Roberts said that it would take about one day for engineering the alley, not long to check on competitive prices, and that the whole process could be done very quickly. .AMENDMENT: Len Blackstone said that he wanted to amend the motion to say that the 175' of alley must be paved by January 1, 1984. Steve Cornacchia seconded the motion. Jack Gischel said that he didn't see any reason to require the paving so soon. l(( Lee Beyer said that he also did not agree with the amendment and felt that the church was showi~g good faith with their proposal. Joe Allison asked Mr. Seese if money was not a consideration in holding up the paving, how soon the church would be willing to start paving? ~lr. Seese responded that he just didn't know, that getting reasonable prices and the availability of the hot mix were factors that he didn't know about at this time. VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT: The motion failed by a vote of 4:3 against, (Greg Shaver, Gayle Decker, Lee Beyer, and Jack Gischel opposed; Len Blackstone, Steve Cornacchia and Joe Allison in favor of the amendment). imIUTES, Pl anni ng Commi ss i on, 11/2/83 ------------------------------------ Page 5 e . . VOTE ON THE /lAW ~lOTlON: The motion made by Greg Shaver-and seconded by Lee Beyer to allow the church to have until June 15, 1984 to pave the 175' of alley east of Selco to approximately the center of the church property was passed by a vote of 6:1 with Steve Cornacchia voting in opposition, Consideration of the variance requiring the paving of off-street parking spaces: Greg Winterowd said that the Planning Commission might wish to consider the changing of the section of the Zoning Code in the future. Greg Mott said that under the current Zoning Code that paving of off-street parking spaces was a standard requirement. Gayle Decker asked how many off-street spaces were needed. Greg Mott responded that 18 spaces were needed to use the structure for the church and that these did not include the spaces already required for the for the dwelling units on the property. Mr. Seese said that there was the issue of drainage where the parking spaces were located near the alley and that the church would like to delay paving all of the spaces and use the graveled parking area for 7 of the spaces. Additionally he said that only about 3 of the parking spaces out of the 12 spaces for the residential units were used. Lee Beyer asked when the building project for the church was to start and Mr. Seese said after the old church site was sold. (, ( Fred Tepford said that after the new building was constructed that the parking lot would be smaller and in a different shape and that the church would like to wait until then to pave the parking spaces. Rebuttal: Kevin Roberts said that. perhaps a solution to the parking spaces .would be to allow a light overlay rather than a permanent surface until the construction was completed. Mr. Seese said that he liked Kevin's suggestion and would like to have final paving requirements tied to the occupancy of the new building. The public hearing was closed. Len said that he did not feel that this was an issue that should have come to the Commission in the form of a variance but should have been handled at the staff level. MOTION: Lee Beyer moved to deny the variance request. Jack Gische1 seconded the motion and the motion carried unanimously. Following the voting on the motion, there was a brief discussion about whether or not the church would be able to occupy the building they wished to use if the variance was denied and occupancy not approved if the paving was not done. Greg WinterOl'ld said that if the applicants could show a master .p1an of theirl ' property lnc1udlng the parklng and lf the parklng spaces could be surfaced . with an interim overlay t~n perhaps occupancy could be allowed. MINUTES, Planning Commission, 11/2/83 ----------------------------------------Page 6 . f e . ATTACHr~ENT A - 11/2/83 Planning Commission r,1inutes RECAP of request to Springfield Planning Co~~ission for considerat ion I~ov. 2, 1983 F~(Cil\ Springf ield Church of the Brethren 1. Temporary rei ief from 2 special use permit condi t ions (Cnly unti I proposed new bui iding is completedl ". r,ot pave cast 155 feet cf alley B. Hot install LPS lights 2. Permission fa use exist ing gravel parking area at rear of lot for 7 out of t8 spaces required for remodeled assembly roc~ lMaximum 5 years) 3. 'ilork on proposed paving in Alley and ilew Parking Lot be oostpaned until spring of 19E4, to be carr,pleted by July 1,1924 for the Building Corrmittee Dale R. Seese 747-4296 Oct. 17, 1983 " ., MIMUTES, Planning Commission. 11/2/82 -------------------------------------Page 7