Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - December 2, 2003CITY C}F CENTRAL POINT PLANNING C©MMISSIDN AGENDA Decezlaber 2, 2003 - 7:00 p.rn. L;.+l ~ ~~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 603 I. MEETING CALLED Td ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland ,Candy Fish, Don Foster, Paul Lunte, Connie Moczygemba, Rack Perry and. Wayne Riggs I1I. C4RRESPQNDENCE IV. 14~TUTES A, Review and approval of November 4, 20fl3, Planning Commmission Minutes VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS A. Public hearing to review a site plan application. The applicant is requesting approval to add a duplex on his lot, identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37S 2W 2, Tax Lot 9010, also known as 400 N. IO"' Street. This lot is zoned as R-3, Residential Multiple Family District. Page 1 - l2 l3. Public hearing to receive public input regarding the adoption ofan ordinance that will amend the City's current fence regulations. The regulations are being modified to meet Federal flood prevention require3nents, and recommendations ofthePlanning Cozxunassion at the November 4, 2003 zrzeeting. Pages 13-24 VII. MISCELLANE©US VIII. ADJC}URNMENT Pe120220Q3 City of Central Paint Planning Commission Minutes November 4, 2U{}3 I, MEETII'~IG CALLED TQ t?RDER AT '1:00 P,M, II, R{~LL CALL: Chairman Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Paul Lunte, Connie Moczygemba, and ~Tayne Riggs were present. Rick Perry was absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director; Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; and Lisa Morgan, Planning Secretary. III, CflRI[2ESP©NDENCE There was correspondence regarding the Wal-Mart application, (Business Item A} received from PacLand discussing their decision to waive the 120 days. Com~nurzity Development Director Tom Humphrey read this into the record. Additional correspondence distributed to commission members included a letter from Duncan Development explaining revisions to Business Item B and also a new Tentative Plan reflecting the change. IV, MINUTES Commissioner Foster made a motion to approve the nninutes from the Qetober'7, 2003 Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. RC}LL CALL: Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Lunte, yes; Moczygemba, yes; and Perry, Yes; Riggs, yes, Motion passed. V, PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VL BUSINESS A. Public hearing to review a land use application for a three lot tentative subdivision on a single tax lot containing approximately 22 acres. The subject parcel is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 02D, Tax. Lot 100, in the C-4, Tourist acid Office Professional district. Planning eamnrissiorr Minutes November 4, 2l?D3 Page 2 Commissioner Fish made a motion to post-pone the public hearing for the Wal-mart partition. Cor~uxaissioner Moczygemba seconded the motion. RC)LL CALL: The motion passed unanimously. B. Public hearing to review an application for a zoning rnap amendment that would replace R-1-10, Residential Single Family {10,000 square foot minimum) with R- 1-6, Residential Single Family (6,000 square foot minimum) zoning. The tax lots are located east of Gebhard Road, and north of Walnut Grave Lane on Map 36 2W 35DI), Tax Lats 1200 &1.300. Chaizperson Piland asked ifthere were any ex parte communications or conflicts ofinterest to declare, Commissioner Moczygemba stated that her family resides in the immediate vicinity of the proposed zone change. Commissioner Riggs said that his daughter resides in the area, and overheard discussions regarding the petition circulated for the proposed development. Commissioner Moczygemba and Conunissioner Riggs, said it will not have an effect on their ability to make an objective decision. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, presented the staff report and explained that the applicant has made some adjustments to his plans. These changes are to reduce the number of lots by 26, and add approximately one more acre to the park area, Mr, Duncan is requesting a zone change be considered for R-1-8 rather than the originally requested R-1-6 designation. The applicant made these changes based on the concerns voiced by surrounding neighbors. There were discussions regarding how viable the R-1-10 zoning is, given the current city limits, proposed urban reserve area and with the State requiring more efficient use of land. Mr. Humphrey said that an R_1 M 10 zoning would be more appropriate for lots surrounding a golf course with estate type homes as an example. Corrunissioner Moczygemba made a motion to adapt Resolution 600, reconending the proposed zone change from R-1-10 to R-1-8. Commissioner Lunte seconded the :motion, Rf~LL CALL: The motion passed unanimously. C, Public hearing to consider a tentative plan fora 122 lot subdivision known as Bluegrass Downs located east of Gebhard Road, and north of Walnut Grove Lane in the R-1-10, Residential Single Family zoning district on map 36 2W 35l)D, Tax Lots 1200 & 1300. PLartrxing Commission Minutes IVovernber 4, .2DQ3 Page 3 The applicants are working with the required agencies regarding the creation ofa shallow pond in the development to mitigate the loss of wetland areas on the property. The pond will not pose significant safety hazards and will be fenced with a black chain link fence to blend in better with the environment. The area to be fenced is approximately two acres, leaving approximately 1 /~ acres of usable park land. The usable park area will be improved with park SI7C's. The Public Works Staff report was not available for the meeting, and will reviewed when the application is presented to the city council. In discussions with the Public Works Department, it was determined that the usual improvements to Gebhard Road will be expected and that a storm water detention pond may not be necessary. The applicant will be given the opportunity to work with Public Works and discuss their requirements. The applicant intends to work further with Jackson County Roads, regarding construction access on Gebhard Road, to avoid construction toff c going through the existing neighborhoods. The applicant will have to chose another name for Chestnut Lane, since there is already a Chestnut Street in the city. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adapt Resolution 601, approving the revised Tentative Plan for Blue Grass Downs Subdivision, contingent upon Council approval of the zone change. -~~~~i~si~r~~~ seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously. ~~ ~ ~ D, Public hearing to review a revised Site Flan application and Conditional Use Permit application at the existing McDonalds restaurant. The restaurant is requesting approval for the construction of additional seating area and a play structure. The subject parcel is in the G-~, Tourist and Ufhce Professional district and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as rnap 37 2W 02CD, Tax Lots 2900 and 3000, lien Gerschler, Community Planner presented the staff report. A conditional use permit is required for the drive~through window, a conditional use in the C_d zoning district. The applicant is proposing to change the configuration of the drive-through area, adding additional seating, and a play area. Landscaping will be removed and redistributed to an island and other areas. Anew sign will Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 2Q03 Page 4 be added on site indicating there is a play place, no changes will be made to the freeway signs. Mr. Gerschler explained that there was a traffic study conducted in 1995, recommending that access to McDonalds be monitored. The Planning Department would like to continue this recommendation with the new site plan conditions of approval. If the City police and Public Works judge safety to be a problem then full access from Freeman Road could be changed to right- in 1 right-out access only. Loy Taylor, Agent and Construction Project Manager for applicant, explained that the applicant's goal with the new drive-through configuration is to reduce the service time by 1/3. Mr. Taylor then asked about the 1995 traffic report and explained that access is critical to the success of a fast food restaurant. Chairman Piland closed the public portion of the meeting. Commissioner Foster made a motion to adopt Resolution 602, approving the conditional use permit modification and Site Plan Review for upgrades at Mcllonalds, subject to the conditions of approval, Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. RCJLL CALL; The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the Planning Commission meeting past 10:00 P.M, Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion.. BULL GALL; The motion passed unanimously. E, Public hearing to review the City Council adoption of an ordinance amending and clarifying the language in the C-4, Tourist and Office professional zoning district. Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, presented the staff report and explained that this item is being brought to the Planning Commission to give them an opportunity to review the ordinance and make comments, There were discussions regarding the information in the packet, the average store square footage, and their various classifications based on the same. Plnnnirzg Commission ~Ylintztes November 4, 21103 Page S Some of the commissioner's questions included; 1. how did the council arrive at the Bfl,C}p{} square foot maximum? and would a recommendation from. the Planning Commission, at this Point have a bearing Mr. Humphrey explained that the Planning Commissions recommendation is important, in order to satisfy the City's procedural requirements for code amendments and to have them consider the land use implications of regional large-scale development. Co~:nissioner Moczygemba said that just about any development is going to be a regional attraction due to the size of the Rogue Valley. Commissioner Fish said that Central Point is constricted already by the available land within its boundaries. Chuck Martinez, a commercial real estate representative for the Naumes', spoke in regards to the Wal-mart application. He stated that he doesn't think traffic would be any greater with a superstore, than it would be with a Community Shipping Center. Mr. Martinez then referred to the Mountain View Plaza and his reasoning behind the slow development of the plaza as a Community Shopping Center, Mr. Martinez stated that he feels the Planning Commission should focus their attention on architecture and other aspects like building orientation, rather than maximum square footage of a building. Ray Wilkinson, a resident on Beebe Road, indicated that road improvements from the traffic impact should be made prior to any development. Becca Crofl, resident on Beebe Road, stated that diversifi~ing businesses will help stagger traffic patterns and minimize overall economic loss should businesses leave the Pear Blossom site. She believes that any amendment to C_4 should also include the C-5 zoning district. Robert Boggess, Property Manager for the Naumes property, spoke emphasizing cor~unents made by Mr, Martinez. He asked that the commission consider not making any recommendations until a decision is rr~ade by LUBA. The 1'la~u~ing Commission determined that they would like additional information prior to making a recommendation, Cam;nxissianer Fish made a motion to post pozze a recaxnendatiQn regarding the adc~ptioxx of an ordinance previously passed by the Council, clarifying and amending, the Planning Comnrissiorr tbfinutes November ~, 2003 Page 6 C-4 zoning district; pending a LUBA decision and additional information being made available to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously. F. Public hearing to receive public input regarding the adoption of an ordinance that will amend the City's current fence regulations. The regulations are being modified to meet Federal flood prevention requirements, and to strean~e the code. Mr. Humphrey presented that staff report, and explained the two options brought before the commission. He discussed how the Planning Department has assumed the responsibility of managing fence permits. Further discussions were that the Planrt.~ing Department has issued approximately S$ permits since taking over in mid September. Given the existing fence ordinance, there is a significant amount of time being spent to force people to get fence permits. It is the Planning Departments desire to eliminate the need for permits, to better educate the public, and to simply enforce non- compliance, similar to the way storage shed construction is managed. Commissioner Fish made a motion to make changes to Option 2, as follows: 1} delete note `G' from the Table in Sction 1'757,020 , specifying that a fence permit is needed; 2) define strew set back area (in the same section] and 3} describe penalties imposed for violation. Staff should bring the new code back to the commission Duce these changes have been made. Comr~~issioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously, VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Mr. Humphrey introduced the attachment for the correction of resolution numbers, and turned the item over to Lisa Morgan, Planning Secretary. Ms. Morgan, explained that in getting caught up on resolutions passed, it was discovered that there were some resolution numbers that were duplicated. The attached table identifies what the motions were and the correct resolution number for each motion. The minutes approved ealier by the commission for October '7, 2043, reflects the Planning Go»rmissiort Minutes November 4> 2003 Page 7 corrected resolution numbers. B. Mr. Humphrey announced that the Planning L`~epartment has found a replacement for the Community Planner position. David Alvord is scheduled to start on November 1'7, 20(}3. VIII. ADJC}~7RNlYIENT Commissioner Lunte made a rnation to adjourn the meeting, Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. RDLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned. at 10:54 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPC?RT I IEAF~ING DATE: Decombor 2, 2(}03 T4: Central Point Planning Commission FR{7M: lien Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public 1-leaving-Site Plan Application of 37 2W O2BC, Tax Lot 900-Additional Dwelling Units on R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoned lot. t~wnerl Apn]icant: John Owens 39 Glen flak Court Medford, Oregon X7504 Pro cr Deseriptivn/ 37 2W O2BC, Tax Lot 900 - 0.28 acres Zonin R-3, Residential Multiple Family District Sunanna~ A property owner is requesting site plan approval to construct a duplex beside the existing residence at 400 North Tenth Street. Multiple-family and dwelling groups are permitted uses in the R-3 zoning district. Staff is referring the application to the Commission because of the unusual features and circumstances ofthe site {17.72.O2O.C~} Aatharity: CPMC 1.24.0120 vests the Planning Comzxzission with fihe authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a site plan. Notice of the public lxearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.0}60) {Attachment A}. Applicable Law CPMC 17.28.010) et seq.- Residential Multiple Family Zoning District CPMC 17.72.010 ct seq.- Site Plan Review Discussion The applicant, John Owens is requesting that the Planning Commission review and appz•ove a site plan that would allow him to construct a new duplex beside the existing house at 400 North Tenth Street. Both structures would share the 0).28 acre parcel with the duplex being located between. the existing Douse azld the east property boz~ndary. The East Cherry Estates padlot development lies in~n~ediately east of this project site. `l~he site plan and elevations {Attachment B}depict each of the duplex units as having q79 square le~et with t~~ro bedrooms and two bathroon~zs. Each dwelling unit ~...~ ;3 will be equipped with a single car garage and single car carpoz•t. The existing house has a caz•port, wilding setbacks in the R-3 district are 2(} feet for the front lot, 10 feet for the rear and five feet for the side lot 1znes. Unfortunately, the proposed duplex is too large to meet the z•ear, side and front lot Imes and the Planning Commission ctrnnot approve the site plan review application as submitted since the zoning criteria have not been met. Earlier in the year, the applicant had applied to partition the lot into two separate lots Attachment ~ }one of which would have the existing house with the other containing the new duplex. That map showed a duplex "footprint" that met all of the required setbacks but the proposed lots could not meet the minimum lot size requirements. The map was returned to the applicant along with a letter to explaining why the proposal would not meet code. If the same duplex "footprint" {without partition}were used on this application, the site plan could have been approved with minor architectuz•aI amendments. The Planning Commission has several options to present to the applicant. The Commissionz could give the applicant an oppoz-tunity to present a duplex plan that complies with the setback requirements and review the plan at a subsequent meeting. The applicant coLZld also request a variance f ron~ the setbacks based upon extenuating cireurnstanees but the variance application would require a separate application, public notice and meeting. lfthe applicant chooses to submit a revised site plan, the Planning Department recommends that the structure be modified architecturally. While the duplex is showza as single story structure with lap siding and tab shingle siding in tlae gables, the Planning Department feels that the architecture should be modifzed to match the motif of the new padlot units that were constructed on Cherry Street. The existing carport is not in good condition and should be improved as a condition to approval. The proposed garages and carports can be architecturally improved to place more emphasis on landscaping. The Catalog entitled ldouse Plans for Small Lots is an excellent resource for finding smaller, fiznctiozzal dwellings and the Planning Department will loan a copy to the applicant upon request. The existing duplex plan presents only five feet of separation between the existing carport Istorage room and the proposed duplex. In most situations, the zoning code requires a ten foot separation between primazy and accessory structures however the existing house and proposed duplex would both be classified as primazy structures whereas the ten foot separation would not apply. In discz.zssiazg the building separation with the Building Department, the applicant could either:(1}build a two hour firewall between tl-~e two structures or; (2} reduce the width of the existing carport one foot in oz•dez• to meet a six foot separation that is required by building code. Access to the duplex would be taken from Cherry Street, a roadway that was significantly improved in 1 }98 when the East Cherry Estates Subdivision was built. Presently there is curb, gutter and sidewalk installed along zxzost of Cherry Street. The applicant will need to install curb cuts and sidewalk sectioz-~s as required by the Public Woz•ks Department. ~~7 ~ Landscaping is limited on the site plan. The Planning Department recommends that the Planning Commission assign a condition that the applicant provide a more detailed landscape plan that includes shrub and tree species together with an irrigation plan. A backflow prevention assembly will be required.. New fencing has been proposed along the rear and side lot 1znes of the project area. Any fencing would need to be designed to allow access to emergency service in areas where the fence is too close to the structures. Firefighters for example, need adequate space to positions ladders in case of fire. Tine Public Works Department, Pogue Valley Sewer Services {RVSS) and Fire District Number 3 have been notified of this application. Public Works will require that the developer install the applicable curb cuts to Public Works Standards. Public Works will also assess the applicable System Development Fees when the building permits are processed, The Fire District will require that the developer provide the agency with a set ofimprovement plans that shows hydrant locations. P.VSS has facilities in the area that can serve the project, however there are fees that will need to be paid. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Site Pltrn lieview In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 1 ~.'~2.04~: A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction. of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme ofthe neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses, The Commission may requiz•e the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The applicanf has given a minimal landscape plan. Amore in-depth landscape and irrigation plan will be requi~•ed when. tl~e building Plans for fhe duplex are submitted. An irrigation system with. backflow prevenfion assembly will be required. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The existing house and fhe proposed duplex will take access from Cherry Street. New curb eufs will need fo be installed to Public Works standards. C. To provide off-street parking anti loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flaw facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the ~~se for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The off-sfreef parkia~g requirements for tl~e existing house and for fhe new duplex are tc~vo covered spaces per dwelling unit. The application shawl a twa vehicle carport for the existing house. The duplex will have a single car garage and single car carpart for each unit. The off-street parking requirements have been met. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do neat conflict with or deter from tz•affic control signs or devices and that Choy are compatible with the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ~ Na signs have been prapased at this time. Jacksan Caunty Fire Dis#rict Number 3 will require that the address be prominently displayed an each dwelling unit. E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fzghting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to f re apparatus; F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction crr`ls to meet the minimum setback requirements far the R-3, Residential Multiple Family listrict. The applicant will need to provide a duplex plan that meets the setbacks ar obtain a variance from the setback standards. The applicant will also need to meet the requirements of the Building Department in relation to the building separation between the existing carpart and the prapased duplex. C7. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide acsthctic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The praposed duplex and an-site improvements comply with the intent of the district but would be mare aesthetically acceptable to the residential activities in the area if a few changes were made to the architecture and landscaping in the front. Recaznmezzdatian Staff recommends that the Plazaning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Continue the review ofthe site plan at dle discretion ofthe Commission to allow the applicant to provide a site plan that meets the code, oz' 2. Deny the proposal site plan Attaclzrrzents A. Notice of Mce;ting 13. Site Plazz, floor Plan anti Building F~levations C. (Jriginal Partition cznd Letter to Applicant D. Planning l~epaz•tn~ent Conditions :} ~.~ .~ ,.« .~ ;~L/~ Cz ty of Cen teal Pozn t F'lannzn :Otr~:,~~ic~r Ken Ge,-:;c}~l..r. Cc~rnunit,y 1"'l,.nner Davy, .~lrkens F'lannn Tccl;n~cian Lzsa ivf~srgn ;'Iann;r2~ Secretary ~~~rC ~~'~~~~~ I~~~~~~~~ Meeting Date: "i'irx~e- ~'ltzcc: N~1'I'L1Rr nl? ii-,gC:~>1~:'1'I:ti1C~ i:C)0 h.z~l. (~~.~~hr~~xina~~tc) Central I'oizit Ci1,~- l:Iall ] ~ 5 ~C;itt}1 ~eGaTl~ Strt'Ct Ccntr;t} ~"altlt, t)egazl 1:3<;~,i1~r~it3g ~~t the ~t~o~~c tira~ arlcl ~~ace, the C;cz~tral 1'c~int t'lar~rzii:~ C"c~nir~~issiorz~~~ill r~;~;~icti~ a site hiat~ appli~;atiozl. The trppliczzt~.t is r~c~ltiestirig t~htn-oval to aclct a dixhl~,x ot~ his lot, i<Ies~ti~fic~-i i~~tl~e rcec~I-~ls c~f'the J'ack.soYi Cc~u~~ty.lsscssor as ~,~<zp ~~7~; ~\~v' ?, rl,ax. I.,ot 900, also knou~rl as 4()U i~T. 10'x' Stre41. `Plus lot is paned as IZ-3~ Resicleaztial tiizaltii~le I=azlzily Distr-i~t. 'I~hc C`er~trt~1 I'czintl'l~rziuz~~; Ct~~rz~zr~ssion ~~~ill ~:cti~i ew tl~e site~~la.1 rr~hlicatior~ta d~;tcr-r~~ir~e i Fall ~~itl~c xec~uire;rntr~ts of tlzc C`cntr~il Pt~izit'~~~zuii;il~al Cock c~iz~ be rx.et..if'tl~c: Cozi~n~ission deterz~~ines that the ~rpplicatiur~ z~leets tl~c City-'<, starlciarcls, ern ai~~~t-cz~~al a~~z1d lac issued. t;R[fl"I,;R1;'~ l~~{~~ l~l_',C l`~IO~; "l~he~-e~lt~ir-ca~~ctzts for site 1~1~iz~-:-victi~~ ar e set ~crz th in.C°l~ahtcr 17 c~i'the.~'c~trall'~rir~t.~~iurli_cip~il Cade, r~~~ltin~; tc> C,t,rlcral lz~fc>rr»:itit3z~r az~d cc>raclitivr~s ~~~ the ~~rc>j~~;t rl~r,r?val, ~. ~1llVl?ChSCatlirrte.rC;StCCliliCC)11~}112Crii1714',t~iltll~at,Cwc.--[11~iltitl~'..-~~,~~!'~.1 i':°C1CC,1s1011?lia)r_~rl~)II"i]f~~'Z1ttUi1 t;c_~ri~t,l~~nt~ t~l? ~.~,ltil ilzc :lase trl'tl~c° r~,cc~tint schccit~lctl io~~ 1't c Scla`,j, D~~c~zz~llx;i` 2, 2t)C;~. ~~'zil.tc;t;L;t,>>i;;}ent~zzzt}l?::seiiti2~at11,:~1;t;cultC~c~.~~•t~iic~~,;z>C'c.~zlir.rll'c~izz`rC`r}l1~t11,15Sflut Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe comment period noted. above. Anytestimonyandwrttten comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. ~. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applic.~at are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Paint, Qregon. Copies ofthe same are available at 15 cents per page. 5, For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at {541 } -3321 ext. 292. S~l~MARY OF FRC3CEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the application and technical staffreports, The Commission at their discretion, may decide to hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. if allowed, any testimony or written comments must be related. to . the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion ofthe revievr the Planning Commission may approve or deny the site plan as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central. Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~s ys> 155 South Second Street • Central Point, C)R 97502 ~ (541} 664-3321 !Fax: X541} 664-63$4 f . ~ r' ~1 t ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~~ i ~ ~ ~~~ ... 1 1 ~. 1 ~ t ~ ~a ' ~ ~ ~ ~~- ~ ~x i~ I ~~ t ~ ~ ~~' }n I F ~'~~ 1 ~ S ~C ~ 1' ~v ~_, . p 1 t ~:~ 2 ~! ~ ~ ._ ,~ ~• ~ " ~l u, ~ .~ '~~ ~~ o ~~a~s ._ .__...,. _ ~ .~; ~s;~:c.~; ~._ .__ e~ .~ ' 1 J ~,~ ~c~~ 3 ~~ ~~ ~. /~ a „~ ` "~ ~ t ~-~yy 3 ~1 - S -~} _.. ~ j .. ~i ~~ $7td Y~ E~ x~~ ~, ~ 6~ °' g~ ~` ~a b b-o- x ata- sra. s~o- x s-o- xio ..~-.- I ~ i.v. ~ I ~ I I I I I I I d'O' F E ! I Md~Sr£R 8£DR04h1 f # 10' X 10'2" ~ } 4 LIVINfi 3~-~^ ~ 1~-- z _ ¢Q~~ pQ~, CVp1_q.T~} S:b. Yb- S:I3. i i ( - Yb` I I I ~ ~'--- ~ ..-... MASTER {~brcttt E BArfi ~ '10`30" X 5'6° ~/ O ~y j e~-~. 6£11C TiaTI,A Y.GI%J# 32/"5" J~ ~3y3y'b" 4Y~.11_~W} UN xb` 8ATt1 f 2 S~ - I . I ~ 8'30' X 5"6" I I Yb" ~,.,......_.... I I { f F . ______ ~9' 1v1.!~!~a} fiUSit Ebt1NG R,ik -~c~' ~~(~} xs' 2{' £rarar W a£r3ROOM ~z ! i _I ~ 30' X 30' -. J .. I I b-y. i i rute e ra ' a.~. Kl7Cl~t~H ~' 3 ~ _~ _ 8'33" X 13" I t ~ i ~ Q o ~ I I ~ - xTC1aAc CC}V~R i ~ fb ~g itI t5'8" X ~ ' Y&" UU1Nx?RY ~ vusr, 5'Z" 'TO" \° YO' 5{ 3'6' X 3'b` Xt0 Y~" i t7 S'4- 9.583' X 76% = 3.53' W13b" MFN 9.W.P trz urn ----_...___~ taoots.ts~-aam ~so•Xx{-i F ~ ~~ I i { i I ,..___ t i 1 3 t ~ C4V£R£G CARPOR3 f.ARAG£ ~ I lYX2Y 12'X21' I I I I I I I I I I a- x sn- o uc o ____ . . . ________...__________ ratr4t a ryJ~ ~y+~ ] ~Vt •j ~~„+,, ~l ! ~~w ~~~'..~( T l~V ;~ ~"1 a Zs X 0 x 0 µ, O T!s u tit 0 6 x 0 X Q }~ ~M, ~~ eas us tae Y N, a ~E~ ~ i9RIAA iIIMMK ~. ~. s~. .. Sa:p t i 1 E' ----~---~ ~ s i PARCE3~ 7 q 6A80 $Q FT I TE.'1 ~TTA T.I V.E' .YAR~'IT.~1'3.3N .~',~,~ .2' Located ,in the N. H': ~r'~ of Sec. 2, T.3?.5., R.,2}3':, A':M. G".rty of t~en tral 1'oin t Jackson County, E7regon 7A0 V. St ~ ~ f -iA ~;K ° '° :a ~o I ~ ^^~ 'a ~ -- -~ ~ ' - .~. - -. ~ ~r~ µ f s ~ ~- ~ ~ ~3. N' t~STtT33CI~ ~~~1 ?UV..1 s - Tvrrr ffumPhr'ey,~tlGY' Pltzrartirt~ Director .ii.)iirr V~. ~/,~6'VClk:ir'~t l!} v~t ..sAv.i i.~U{. ii 44+44tL iyledEord, Oregon 97S(7~l ~,~. t ,,,v,:;z.,, Kerr fferschter Cornrnunity f'lanner~ Dave tlrkens Flanr:ink Technician Lisa rt~lorgart Plrtnr2ing Secretary Cast wr,~,k we spoke on the telephone concerning tlae tentative land division that you submitted for your property at QUO North `T'enth Street irz Central Point. Tn your application., you a•equested that the Central i',lizii 1'lstraiaiarg Cornaaaission grant approval for the: partition. .xt.;:;~t~;Aa tlar: iaa•oposal rsaay have financial merit by enabling you to sell the existing house and consta-uct a duplex unit on the newly created lot, the zoning ordinance has established minimum lot sizes as 7,fl0(7 saAttare; :feE~t for corner lots and 6,aJ00 square feet for interior lots within the R-3, Residential Multiple F<rrr~ily District. Unfortunately, your application depicts lots that are well below the minimaarxa area requirc;tnc;nts for the R-3 zone. Your proposed Lot 1 would be 6,48C} square feet and proposed Lot 2 would be x,720 square fc;et. Since the proposed lots fail to meet the minimum lot size requirements, the municipal code compels the Planning Commission to deny the application as submitted. You have the option offiling an application to vary from the rrainimum Tot sizes in order to partition the lots as proposed, however there is no guarantee that the Planning Commission or City Council would approve them unless you were able to convince the rrrembers that tTaere are special circumstances present. Picase observe that I have enclosed ara application foz' a zone variance with this letter if you should decide to proceed with dais option. Currently, you could build the duplex on the existing lot with the house at 400 North Tenth Street since the code permits the outright construction of"dwelling groups" in the R-3 district. To facilitate this, please complete the enclosed an application for site plan review anal return it to City Hall and we will schedule it for a Planning Commission meeting as soon as possible. f have enclosed your tentative land rase partition documents. You will need some of the enclosures for the zone variance and site plan review should you decide to pursue either option. 1 will request that the i~ finance :Department return your application fee. if you should have any questions concerning this anattea• or would prefer to meet with City staff, please feel Free tea contact tlae Planning Tepartment by telephone, at {~41} 6b~1-3321, 1;xtension 292. Si~acerely, Vert C~erschle:r .~. ~. __ .;,<.,-~ _ , ., ...:.~ :",,;,; < a}< <1t.St)1 (S41) ~d~1-3321 e;xt. 231 ~ 1`ilzc {5~1)~Ca4-~:3~4 ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMEItiIT CONDZT~©NS OF APPRQVAL The applicant shall provide a revised site plan or an application for variance from the required setbacks. if the applicant fails to provide a suitable duplex site plan, the Commission will deny the site plan application. If the applicant files a variance application, the Commission may or may not approve the variance at their discretion. 2. If a revised Site Plan is submitted and approved by the Planning Commission, it must comply with all applicable Iocal, state and federal regulations. If the site plan shows the duplex any closer than six {6) feet froze the existing carport structuz•e, the applicant shall eithez':{1) build a two hour ~rewall between the existing carport and the proposed duplex or; {2} reduce the width of the existing carport one foot in order to meet a six foot separation between structures that is required by building code. 4. The applicant shall meet all ofthe requirements established by the Public Works L~epaztment, Dire District Number 3 and the Rogue Valley Sewer Services. 5. The applicant shall submit a detailed Iaz~zdscaping and izrigation plan to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. ~y~ ,y; .~. Discussion The City of Central Paint is one of the few local jurisdictions that has a fence ordinance. The fence ordinance as it stands now is often ignored by local contractors and its enforcement is labor iaatensive particularly in the 100-year floodplain. {fiver time, the Planning Department has assumed increasingly more responsibility for monitoring and enforcing the existing ordinance which has led to the proposed changes. The Planning Department has expanded upon Option #2 since the last meeting, explaining when fence permits will be required, what our expectations are in the stream setback area and what penalties will be imposed for violation. The changes being considered in the proposed ordinance have to do with aligning the City's code with the way fences are treated in a flood hazard zone by the Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA}. Changes in this section also relate directly to Chapter 12.20 which involves fences in the public right-af~--way and is monitored by the public warps department. Staff is also proposing modest changes to Chapter 12.20. {Attachment B}. City Staff requests the Planning Commission eliminate the fence ordinance as is written and adopt the one shown in this report as "Attachment A". This option is intended to "stream-line" the fence ordinance for ease of use and enforcement. Ac#iou• Staff requests that the Planning Commission, after careful deliberation, to make a determination and sulasequent motion which would either approve, deny or table far a later time, proposed ordinance, Chanter 17.57,,.,-,Fences; whiciz addresses fencing in a flood zone. Staff further requests that, upon condition of approval, the Planning Corr~mission recommend approval of Chapter 17.57 to the City Council. Attachments: A. Chapter 17.57 Fences (proposed} B. Chapter 12,20 ©bstruction of Streets {proposed} 4,z k.~. _~ ~ ~ Chapter 17.57 Fences Sections: 17.5'7.(110 Chapter Application 17.57.020 General Regulations 17.57.030 Fences in the Stream Setback Area 1?.57.1}40 Prohibited Fence Types 17.57.050 Violation -Penalty 17.57.010 Chapter Application: This chapter will apply to all zone classifications within the City as listed in Title 17 of this code. All of the provisions of Chapter 12.20 and Chapter 17.67 relating to the location, placement, and. height offences are also applicable to fences affected by this chapter. {Grd. 1781 2, 1 q97; ~Jrd. 1674 {part}, 192} 17.57.020 General Regulations: A. Permits: A Building Permit is required for all fences constructed within the 100 year floodplain, defined by local Flaod Insurance Rate Maps {FIR.1vI} and for all fences const~cted within a public z•ight-of--way, pez• CPMC Title 12.20.020. B. Setbacks: Fencing in any section of any zoning designation within the boundaries of the City of Central Point that has been determined to be in a floodplain shall adhere to the following requirements: 1. Front-yard setbacks shall be 20' in all residential zones, with the inclusion of the CN zone {Neighborhood Commercial}. In all Commercial and Industrial zones; front-yard setbacks shall be 10'. 2. Setbacks in all side yards, rear yards and corner lots shall be a minimum of 10'. 3. Setbacks for gates shall be 20' in all zones. .:~ j 1 `_ C. Design Criteria: 1.42" Nigh maximum fences will be allowed within front setback area. 2. Na fencing will conflict with the site distance requiremcnts established by the Public Works Department. 3. Fence height will be measured from the finished grade on the side nearest the street. 4.Masonry Walls, Retaining Walls, Chain Link Fencing, Space Board-type fencing, or similar fencing that creates a solid wall either by design or the accumulation of debris will not be allowed when located in or adjacent to a recognized floodplain. 5. Requests far fence variances shall be made by application on such farm as designated by the City Administrator and will be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.24. R-L R-t Fence R-2 Regul R-3 ations CN C-2(tr~} C-4 C-S M-1 M-2 Fence Permit Required Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Front Yard Setback Far G' Fence 20'* 20'* 2d"` 2d'* 2d'* 2d'* 20'~ 2d'~ 2d'* 2d'* Side Yard Setback id' id' id' id' id' Id' ld' Id' id' id' Rear Yard Setback Id' id' id' id' id' id' id' ld' 10' ld' Garner Lat Id' b id'b ld'b Id'b Id'b Id' b ld'b id'b ld'b id'b Masonry Walls, Retaining Walls, Fe€zces Oven- 6' in Height d d d d d d d d d d Chain Link Fencing, Space-J~aard-type fencing, etc. d d d d d d d d d d Setbacks far Oates 2d' 2d' 2d' 2d' 2d' 2d' 2d' 2d' 2d' ~d' Variances e e e e e e e e e e ~`a: 42" High maximum fences allowed within front setback area *b: i~a fencing ~viIl conflict with the site distance requirements set by the Pc€blic Works Department. *c: Fence height will be meas€€red from the finished grade an the side nearest the street. d: Masonry WaI1s, Retaining Walls, Cizain Link Fencing, Space Board-type fencing ar similar fencing that creates a solid ~va1l by either design or the acc€€nzz€Iatian of debris will not be allowed when located in or adjacent to a recognized floadplain. e: Requests far variances shall be made by application an saiclz farm as designated by the City Administrator and will be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.2~I. .~ 17.57.030 _ Fences in the Stream Setback Area A. Fences are prohibited inside a floodway as designated on the Federal insurance Rate Maps {FIRM} for the City of Central Point. i-lowever, some types offences and other improvements can be allowed within the recommended building setbacks for properties abutting a stream as long as they meet the following cri#ez-ia: 1. A setback of ten feet {5'} from the top ofthe stream bank is required for all fencing. This allows for periodic inspection of the creek channel by the City. 2. Gates that are installed between properties that border a creek shall be of a width. no less than twelve feet {12'). 3. Irrigation systems constructed inside a floodway should be designed to allow for Public Works Vehicles to navigate in the setback area. ~. ir~•igation systems, fencing or other objects and improvements that are damaged in a flood event within the City of Central Point's jurisdiction will not be replaced by the Ci#y. B. Pa•ohibition of Fencing in the Stream Setback Area -Discussion: Fencing within the floodplain occurs frequently and can significan#ly increase flood elevation. This is due to the fences collecting debris and effectively creating a dam. Limited fencing will be allowed within the floodplain provided that it does not create flow restrictions and allow for the free flow of wa#er. The policies will not apply to Agricultural or AgriculturallResidential parcels Breater than 5 acres, except where flood elevations are significantly impacted. C. Prohibition ofFencing in the Steam. Setback Area ~- Policies: 1. Fencing will be prohibited within the floodway ofa watercourse. C}pen fencing parallel to the flow direction maybe allowed within the stream setback area on a case-by-case basis. 2. Fencing built within the steam setback area must be built in removable sections. Maximum wid#h per section shall be no wider than 8 feet. 3. Fencing that consists of solid walls, creates a barrier impervious to stream flow or fencing that greatly restricts the passage of water will not be allowed. ~t. Fencing outside the floodway but within the conveyance area of a watercourse will be restricted to the least flow-restrictive types ofopen fencing. 5. Fencing outside the conveyance area of a watercourse but within the 100- year floodplain will be restricted to fencing that allows the passage of watez•. ~w~~ 6. City may, at any time, for any reason, require removal of any fence placed in the stream setback area, with no compensation to the owner far the value of the fence. if removal is not accomplished by the owner within thirty days after city's written request thea~efore, city may effect removal and dispasal, and assess the property for the costs thereof in the same manner as set Earth in Section 8.08.030 of this Cade. 7. lfexisting circumstances make it reasonably necessary for city to remove a fence in the steam setback area without giving the property awner advance native and an opportunity to remove the fence, city may effect removal and dispasal, and assess the property far the casts thereofin the same manner as set Earth in Section 8.08.030 of this section, the same as if the property awner had failed to remave the fence after due notice. 8. City shall not, under circumstances, lac responsible far any damage resulting from city's removal of any fence placed in the stream setback area, whether such damage is to a fence, landscaping, underground sprinklers, any building or structure, loss of a pet, damage caused lay a base pet, or any other damage whatsoever, including personal injury. 17.57.040 -Prohibited Fence Types: A. Barbed Wire Fencing or other like material, which creates an unreasonable ar unnecessary a•isk of in}ury. B. Block ar retaining walls, which create impervious water barriers within a stream setback area. 17.57.050 - Violation _ Penalty: Any person violating any provision ofthis chapter will, upon conviction thereof, be subject to the general penalty. Upon discovering any violation ofthe restrictions imposed lay this chapter, except a violation of Section 12.20.020, it will be the duty of the City Administrator, or his designee, to give written notice of the violation to the person in possession and control of the premises on which the offending fence exists or is being const~licted, with a demand that the same lac forthwith made to conform to this chapter. Upon receipt of such natiee, the person responsible far the structure will be deemed to be guilty of a separate offense far each day during which the fence is thereafter permitted to exist in violation far the restrictions afthis chapter. ,d ~f 4+`.. 1'rapased changes to Chapter l 2.20 of the City of Central Faint Caning code: Sectian 12.2().172} _ B {1 c~2) presently reacts: B, rI'e i~t~l~a~vin~~7p~~.ta fences placed in right-af-vd,.a~: 1. Fences in right-of=ways shall be subject to the regulations captained in Chapter 15.207 of this Cade, In applying the height limits of Chapter 15,217, such height limits shall apply to i`ences in the right-of Way as if'the fence in the right-of=way has been placed an the nearest property Zinc. 2. l~ia fence shall be placed in a z•ight-of-way unless and ~~ntil the person proposing to erect the fence has first obtained a fence permit under Chapter 15.217 of this cock, arzd entered into a separate lease agreement With the City far the use of the space to be enclosed by the fence. Section 12.21}.20 ~- B {1 &2) will be ehan~to read: B, The follaWrn apply to fences lid ~n rr~ht-af-ways: 1. Fences insight-of=-ways shall be subject to the regulations contained in Cl-lAl'TE12 1'7.57 of this code. In applying the height limits of CI-IAl'TER 17.57, such height limits shall apply to fences in the right-of=way as if the fence in the right-of Way has been placed on the; nearest property line. 2. 1~1o fence shall be placed in a a•ight-of~way unless and until the person proposing to erect the fence has first obtained a fence permit under Cl"IAPTER 1'7.57 of this code, and entered into a separate lease agreement With the City for the use of the space to be enclosed fry the fence. Chapter 1.2 .2 0 ©BSTRUCTIC7N t~F ,8`I'REE'1'S'~ sections: 12 .20.(71.0 Vehicle defined. 12.20.020 Prohibited. 12.2{7.030 Penalty. 12..20.010 Vehicle defined. 'he term "vehicle" as used here~.n ~.ncludes but ~.s not limited to every automo- bile, motorcycle or other vehicle propelled by power or otherwise. Ord. 881 §3, 1967), 12.20.020 Prohibited. A. Tt is unlawful for any person to place or allow a.n or over any alley, street or sidewal3~, or any street or alley right--of--way, .whether improved or not, any of the following: 1. Any garbage or refuse of any nature, provided, however, that garbage or refuse in enclosed. containers may be temporarily placed within the street right-of-way upon garbage collection days; 2, r r in- cluding items which are b desi n intended to be ortable, provided however, that fences sub'ect to - this section and mailboxes may be placed in a right--of- way, at the owners' expense, if the same do not impede sight distance necessary far the safe use of the street, alley, driveway or sidewalk by vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and further provided that the same shall be re~- moved upon the request of the city; 3. Any sports equipment or structures; ~, Any vehicle, for a period of longer than six hours, except in the following circumstances: a. In a location where parking is otherwise allowed, subject to the restrictions of such allowance; and b. When. the vehicle is attended by a driver vr1~c~, is in the immediate vicinity and capable of immediately removing the vers.icle, whereupon the vehicle may be parked for loading or unloading for a period, reasonably necessary for the purpose, provided that the driver thereof shall forthwith move the same upon request in order to permii-. ingress and egress to other premises, or upon request of ~ peace officer or fireman; '~ For the Charter provisions authorizing the city coun- cil to require the removal of obstructions on public; streets, see City Charter Art. VZ3~ ~9, 7 ~7 tt~'i ~. -~~ __ x. ... ~ ~.. r ,#.. 2 7 ~ Z.... x::13. t. 1. C1 .2. '}~(,} ~} z 3 i-- ~ ._ 5 r .. ~_ ~ ~ i 12.20.020 5. Any trees, shrubs or other landscaping growing, encroaching or overhanging the alley, street, sidewalk or right--of--way, provided, however, that landscaping not in excess of forty-two inches in height may be placed in an unimproved portion of a right--of-way, at the adjacent prop- erty owner's expense, if the same does not impede sight distance necessary for the safe use of the street, alley, driveway or sidewalk by vehicular or pedestrian traffic, and further provided that the landscaping shall be removed by the property owner at the city's request, and may be removed by the city at any time. B. The followin a 1 to .fences Laced in ri ht--of-- w._...~1 r "~- ~ ~ 1. Fences in right-of-ways all be subject to the regulations contained in Chapter this code. In applying the height limits of Chap S such height limits sha11 apply to fences in the rig -of-way as if the fence in the right-~of-way has been placed on the nearest adjacent property line; 2. No fence sha11 be placed in a right-of-way unless and until the person proposing to erect th ence t'7-"~ ~ has first obtained a fence permit under Chapter 1 of this code, and entered into a separate lease agreement with the city for the use of the space to be enclosed by the fence. The following shall apply to the lease agreement: a. The decision as to whether or not the city will enter into the lease agreement shall. be a discretion- ary decision, made by the city council, b. Prior to the council deciding the issue, property owners abutting the space proposed to be leased shall be given an opportunity to be heard, as required by ©RS 2'71,430, c. Before deciding to lease the space, the council shall determine that the use of the space will not unreasonably interfere with the public use and utility use of the street or highway, as required by QR 2`71.430, d. Sf the council. agrees to enter into a lease for the space enclosed by the fence, such lease shall be signed by all record owners of the property, shall be re- corded by city at the applicant's expense, shall bind fu- ture owners of the property, and sha11 include the applicant`s agreement to: i, Indemnify and hold city harmless from any and all causes of action which may accrue to the applicant or any third party in connection with the applicant`s plac- ing of a fence in the right-of-way, or city's removal or damaging of the fence, ii. Indemnify and hold harmless any neigh- boring landowners from any and all causes of action which rc~ay accrue to the applicant or any third party in connec- tion with the neighboring landowner exercising his or her right to maintain, repair, replace or install a private 130 tCentral Point 3194} ~- » 12.20.fl2~ utility line pursuant to subsection (B}~9} of this section, and iii. Consent to a vacation of the street right--of-way in the event city should pursue such a vaca- tion, and waive the right to be compensated if such vaca- tion causes the owner's property to decrease in value. e. 'the council shall set the term of each lease, but each lease shall be revocable by the city, for any reason or no reason, an not less than thirty days writ- ten notice. In addition, a yearly fee, set by the council, shah. be paid by the lessee on an annual basis, the exact amount and time of payment to be set by the council. Fail- ure to pay the yearly fee in a timely manner shall be grounds for revocation of the lease. 3. Prior to issuance of a fence permit, city wa- ter, sewer and storm drainage lines shall be located, by c~.ty, at c~.ty's expense, 4. No permit for a fence in the right-of-way shall be issued for any property that is subject to a restrictive covenant barring fences on the property Line adjacent to the right-of-way. 5. Prior to issuance of a fence permit, the appli- cant shall obtain written consent .for such fence, including its specific location, from the power company, telephone company, natural gas company, and cable TV supplier serving the immediate area. Such consent must include the utility company's agreement to hold the city harmless .from any claim by the utility company for damage to any of its fa- cilities caused by an applicant, and from any claims by the applicant for any damage to the applicant's fence that may be caused by the utility company. 6. No fences shall be placed on ar so as to block access to any water valve boxes, storm drainage catch bas- ins, sewer manholes, fire hydrants or pumping stations and no fence shall be located closer than three feet from the same. Water meters that are enclosed must be easily acces- sible through a gate or other suitable opening. 7. No fence shall be placed in an area in viola- tion of city sight-- and vision-clearance standards, as set forth in the public works standards. 8. Fences shall be placed so as to allow a flat, - passable sidewalk area, a minimum of five feet in width, measured Pram the curb. Such flat, passable sidewalk area shall be created, by the applicant at applicant's expense, prior to construction of the fence, if it does not natural- ly exist. 1n no event shall a fence be placed sa as to cross or block an existing pathway or sidewalk, or the straight continuation thereof. If there is no curb, the fence must be no less than twenty-three feet from the cen- terline of the street. In cases of uncertainty as to the location of the centerline of the street, city may, in its discretion, require the applicant to produce, at 1.31 {Central Point 3/94} ,~; 12.2g.o20 applicant's expense, a survey from a licensed surveyor locating the centerline of the street. 9. In the event that it becomes necessary for a citizen to repair, maintain, replace, or install a private utility line which is buried in an area that has been fenced off by another citizen pursuant to this section, the party requiring access to the utility line may proceed to enter the right--of--way and effect the necessary work; pro- vided that the resident at the fenced-in property is first given reasonable notice, and an opportunity to remove the fence, if necessary. If it becomes necessary to remove part or all of the fence in order to effect the necessary work, the person performing the work may, so long as rea- sonable notice and an opportunity to move the fence has been given, remove so much of the fence as is necessary in order to perform the work, Repair ar replacement of the fence, and any landscaping damaged during the work, shall be at the expense of the owner of the fence. 10, City may, at any time, far any reason, require removal. of any fence placed in the right-of-way, with no compensation to the owner for the value of the fence, Tf removal is not accomplished by the owner within thirty days after city`s written request therefor, city may effect removal and disposal., and assess the property far the costs thereof in the same manner as set forth in 5ectian 8.08,D30 of this code, pertaining to assessing costs of weed abate- ment. 11., If existing circumstances make it reasonably necessary for city to remove a fence in the right-of--way without giving the property owner advance notice and an opportunity to remove the fence, city may effect removal. and disposal., and assess the property for the costs thereof in the same manner as set forth in Section 8.08.030 of this section, the same as if the property owner had failed to remove the fence after due notice. 12, City shall not, under circumstances, be re- sponsible for any damage resulting from city's removal of any .fence placed in the right-of--way, whether such damage is to a fence, landscaping, underground sprinklers, any building or structure, loss of a pet, damage caused by a loose pet, or any other damage whatsoever, including per- sonal injury. C. Zn the event any person violates this ordinance by placing or allowing in or over any alley, street or side- walk, or any street or alley right-of--way, any prohibited object, city may request that the object be immediately removed. Tf removal is not accomplished within a reason- able time as established by the city, city may effect re- moval and assess the property for the costs thereof in the same manner as set forth in Section 8.08.030 of this code. {Ord. 1692 ~1. 1.993: Ord, 1.62 ~1, 1990: Ord. 1.01.9 ~2, 1.933.: Ord. 881 ~2, 1967} . 132 {Central. Pol.nt 3I9~} t:-~ ~.~, ~~ 12.20.030--~,~.24.420 12.20.030 Penalty, Any persan or persons violating any of the prov~s~ons of this chapter shall upon canvictian be punished in accordance with the general penalty ordi- nance of the city, {prd. 1642 ~2, 1990: flrd. 881 ~4, 19 6'7 } . Chapter 12.24 HAZARDQUS CflNDITIflNS Sections: 12.24.010 Removal. of hazardous conditions, 12.24.020 Public hearing, 12.24.030 Removal or correction. 1.2,24.040 Nonexclusive nature, 12,24.010 Removal of hazardous conditions. When any street, road, alley, br~.dge, culvert, d~.tch or body o~ water within the city, whether owned by the city or open to use by the public, as in such a condition or state of dis- repair as to constitute an immediate hazard to the health, safety or welfare of any person, the city administrator may recommend to the city council the removal of said hazard or hazardous condition. {flrd. 1.341. ~2 {part} , 199} . 12,24.024 Public hearing, The city council, upon receipt o~ the recommendata.on o~ the city administrator, ar upon its own motion, shall schedule a public hearing re- garding the removal ar correction o~ such hazard ar hazard- ous condition. Notice o~ the public hearing shall. consist o~ a mailing of notice o~ the public hearing to all proper- ty owners within a three--hundred-~aot radius o~ the hazard ar hazardous condition, and publication in a newspaper ©~ general. circulation within the city once during the week preceding the public hearing. The notice shall contain the time and place of the hearing and contain a brief descrip- tion o~ the alleged hazard of hazardous condition and the proposed action to remove ar correct the same. {flrd. 1341 §2 {part) , 19"79 } . 132a {Central Point 3194} ,.,.r Y e: ,,,