HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 7, 2016 PC PacketCENTRAL
POINT
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
June 7, 2016 - 6:00 p.m.
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Planning Commission members Chuck Piland (Chair), Mike Oliver, Tom Van Voorhees,
Rob Hernandez, Elizabeth Powell, Craig Nelson Sr., and Kay Harrison
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
Review and approval of May 3, 2016 Minutes.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
A. Consideration of miscellaneous amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance
(Scctions 17.08.410 TOD Definitions; 17.32.020 Neighborhood Commercial (C -N)
District Permitted Uses; 17.64.0400, Off -Street Parking Requirements — Accessible
Parking; and 17.67.050(M), TOD Site Design Standards — Signs. Applicant: City of
Central Point.
VII. DISCUSSION
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2016
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Chuck Piland, Craig Nelson, Tom Van Voorhees, Kay
Harrison, Rob Hernandez, Mike Oliver, and Elizabeth Powell were
present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community
Development Director, Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner, and Karin
Skelton, Planning Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE
111. CORRESPONDENCE
None
IV. MINUTES
Rob Hernandez made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 5, 2016
Planning Commission Meeting as presented. Mike Oliver, seconded the motion:
ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Elizabeth Powell,
abstain; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Rob Hernandez, Yes. Motion
passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
None
VI. BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Resolution No. 830 forwarding a favorable
recommendation to the City Council to approve a Conceptual Land Use and
Transportation Plan for CP -3, An Urban Reserve Area of the City of Central
Point, File No. 15030.
Tom Humphrey stated that this was the Planning Commission's third review of
the CP -3 Conceptual Land Use Plan. He said that he had obtained input from
the Citizen's Advisory Committee and had also requested comments from
various agencies. He said that he had received no replies or comments. He
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 2
reminded the Commissioners that this is a conceptual plan to set out a vision for
the area. Once a plan has been conceived, it would go through the process of
conforming it to the Statewide Planning Goals, but at this point it is merely a
concept of what might work well in the area.
He presented two plans showing the zoning that had been preferred by both the
Planning Commission and the Citizen's Advisory Committee. The plans had
utilized Open Space and the TOD zoning of GC as it was more broad than the
C4 zoning. In addition there was a small component of residential space to
accommodate existing residences. He presented four proposed traffic circulation
patterns and asked the Planning Commission to choose their preferred two. One
of the proposed traffic circulation patterns contained a roundabout. There was
discussion about the need to accommodate trucks with horse trailers driving to
the Expo for events and large RV's as there would be quite a few when the RV
park was completed. It was generally thought that if the roundabout was large
enough and the road straight enough it could work. They also discussed the
need to keep traffic moving through the area with as few stops as possible. The
Commissioners discussed the various options. Their decision was that the
proposed traffic pattern number 3 was a workable option. Also that pattern
number 4, with the roundabout would work if the road was straightened and the
roundabout made large enough to accommodate trailers and RV's.
Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution 830, forwarding a favorable
recommendation to the City Council to approve a Conceptual Land Use and
Transportation Plan for CP -3, An Urban Reserve Area of the City of Central
Point. Tom Van Voorhees seconded.
Public Hearing was opened
Dan O'Connor, Attorney
Mr. O'Connor stated that he represented Naumes who owns most of the
property in CP -3. He said that he would like to get input from Jackson County
and the Expo regarding the proposed plans. His clients weren't really in favor of
having a cul-de-sac located anywhere on the road as was depicted in the
proposed plans, and he believed the Expo would not be in favor of a cul-de-sac.
He said that with regard to the traffic circulation it would be important to try to
make any intersections or turns as smooth and gradual as possible to
accommodate the larger vehicles.
Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Piland asked for a vote on the motion. Roll Call: Mike Oliver,
yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes: Elizabeth Powell, abstained; Craig Nelson, yes;
Rob Hernandez, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 3
VII. DISCUSSION
A. Urban Renewal — East Pine Street Streetscape
Mr. Humphrey updated the Planning Commission on the East Pine Street project.
He said that the design would include 10 foot sidewalks and the addition of street
trees. There were surveyors now mapping the area as to infrastructure location
and identifying possible locations for the street trees. He said it was important
that the trees did not block business signs and entryways. He added that there
were going to be open houses to introduce the public to the project. Mr.
Humphrey invited the Planning Commission to attend the meeting of the
Development Commission on May 16th for more information.
B. Country Western Music Festival
Mr. Humphrey informed the Planning Commission that the Bi Mart Country
Western Music event was moving to the Expo which would be good for Central
Point. It would greatly benefit local hotels and restaurants. He said that
currently, the City required concerts at the Expo to finish by 10:00 p.m. but the
Council was considering extending that deadline for this event to 11:00 p.m. He
said that normal attendance would be around 20,000 to 25,000 people.
Tom Van Voorhees suggested that it might be an idea to make improvements to
Upton Road to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic for events at the
Expo. He said that might take a lot of local traffic out of the mix if people could
walk to the Expo for events. Mr. Humphrey said that the IAMP contained some
bicycle and pedestrian components.
C. Costco
Mr. Humphrey stated that the Costco appeal was progressing. The Record has
been sent to LUBA and there had been two motions to intervene filed. One for
the Petitioners and one for the Respondents. Additionally the City's attorney had
filed a Motion to Dismiss and we were currently awaiting a ruling on that motion.
He said that other news was that the LOMR for Twin Creeks had been approved.
Also that the railroad crossing would be starting design work this year. He said
the Battle of the Bones was going to be combined with the Harvest Festival at the
Expo this year.
Planning Commission Minutes
May 3, 2016
Page 4
He informed the Commissioners that there would be some code amendments at
the next meeting, but there did not appear to be any additional items for that
agenda at this time.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
None
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn, Tom Van Voorhees seconded. All
Commissioners said "aye". Meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the May 3, 2016 Planning Commission meeting were
approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of June,
2016.
Planning Commission Chair
Planning Department
STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Tom Humphrey,AICP,
POINTCommunity Development Director/
Assistant City Adn
STAFF REPORT
June 7, 2016
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 16011
Consideration of miscellaneous amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance (Sections 17.08.410 TOD
Definitions; 17.32.020 Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) District Permitted Uses; 17.64.040(C), Off -Street
Parking Requirements - Accessible Parking; and 17.67. 050(M), TOD Site Design Standards - Signs.
Applicant: City of Central Point
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of the proposed amendments are to modify the following code sections:
• 17.08.410 (H. Sign -Related Definitions), TOD District and Corridor Definitions and
Uses by adding definitions for "Reader Board" and "Scoreboard". Currently, the
zoning code (I 7.67.050(M)(4). Prohibited Signs) prohibits Reader Boards, but does not
define what constitutes a Reader Board. This proposed amendment is for clarification.
The question of allowing an electronic scoreboard at Crater High School has been
asked. Currently, the zoning code does not define scoreboards and as such they are
prohibited. The proposed amendment provides a definition of scoreboard thus
acknowledging scoreboards as a type of sign, which then may, or may not be allowed
elsewhere in the zoning ordinance.
17.32.020, C -N District Permitted Uses; modifies and removes restrictions placed on
eating and drinking establishments in the Neighborhood Commercial (C -N) zoning
district. Convenience stores in this zoning district are allowed the sale of beer and wine
and an argument can be made that an eating establishment in this commercial zone
should have the same privilege. Additionally, small craft breweries have expressed the
desire to locate in Central Point in this zone.
17.64.040, (C. Accessible Parking Requirements), Off -Street Parking Requirements by
replacing zoning language and Table 17.64.03 with standards in the Oregon Structural
Specialty Code. The Building Division implements and regulates Accessible (ADA)
Parking Requirements and it is not necessary to repeat these standards in the zoning
code. This also removes the possibility of error or the inconvenience of updating the
land use code when changes are made to standards in the Specialty Code.
Page 1 of 2
• 17.67.050(M. Signs), Site Design Standards. This proposed amendment updates the
table in Section M (I 7.67.050(l)) and subsections 1-4, establishing standards for signs
in the TOD district or corridor. Revisions are made to accommodate scoreboards in the
Civic zoning district, improve building/sign proportionality and to clarify uses of
temporary signs such as A -frame signs and commercial banners.
ISSUES:
The Planning Commission is being presented with selected changes to Chapter 17 to either clarify definitions and
uses in the code or to update it and make the document consistent with the state building code. Changes proposed in
Chapter 17.08.410(H) and Chapter 17.67.050(M) are intended to address `scoreboards' in the Civic zoning district
but also to make changes to sign standards in general following focus group discussions with local sign makers.
Proposed changes address sign and letter dimensions and the way those dimensions are calculated. Sidewalk "A -
Board" Signs and banners are proposed to be removed from the prohibited signs list and allowed with conditions.
External illumination language is expanded to reflect what new businesses in the TOD have been allowed to do
with `back lit' or `halo' lighting.
Changes in the Neighborhood Commercial zoning district (Chapter 17.32.020) are intended to relax outdated
standards and permit restaurants which may choose to serve alcohol. There are several examples of family oriented
restaurants in Central Point (Abby's, Bobbio's, etc.) that are in the vicinity of residential neighborhoods and serve
wine and beer. The existing language in the code does not permit this in the C -N District. According to the
Sustainable City Network e -newsletter, "The neighborhood pub ... is coming back as millennials ditch their cars
and demand amenities of urban life that include shopping, restaurants and bars within walking distance of their
high-density homes. "
Changes that are proposed in Chapter 17.64.040(C ) simply replace zoning code language with references to the
Oregon Structural Specialty Code and its language which is applied and enforced by the Building Division.
FINDINGS:
The Planning Commission, when initiating amendments to the municipal code, makes their
recommendation to the City Council in the form of a resolution. Findings and conclusions for arriving at
their recommendation can be found in Attachment B.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" — Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Attachment "B" — Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Attachment "C" — Resolution No. 831
ACTION:
Consider proposed zoning amendments and 1) forward the ordinance to the Council for approval, 2) make
revisions and forward the ordinance to the Council or 3) deny the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 831 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the
proposed zoning code amendments
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENT "A" Proposed Zoning Code Amendments, File No. 16011
Section 17.08.410 TOD District and Corridor Definitions and Uses
H. Sign -Related Definitions
20. Reader Board. A sign that conveys information about a variety of subjects, including
advertising for products or services, travel, news or event information.
21. Scoreboard. A large internally illuminated sign located within a sports stadium or in
conjunction with a sig event field on which the score of the sporting event is shown and
intended for viewing primarily by persons participating in such sporting events and/or spectators
of such sporting events.
17.32.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses and their accessory uses are permitted outright, subject to compliance with all
applicable municipal, state and federal environmental, health, and safety regulations as well as the
requirements for site plans in Chapter 17.72:
A. Professional and financial offices and personal service establishments;
B. Retail stores, shops and offices supplying commodities or performing services other than vehicle and
fuel sales;
C. Eating and drinking establishments ,
D. Desktop publishing, xerography, copy centers;
E. Temporary tree sales, from November 1st to January 1st;
F. Public and quasi -public utility and service buildings, structures and uses;
G. Neighborhood shopping centers, which may include any of the permitted uses in this section;
H. Other uses not specified in this or any other district, if the planning commission finds them to be similar
to the uses listed above and compatible with other permitted uses and with the intent of the C-4 district as
provided in Section 17.60.140, Authorization for similar uses. (Ord. 2014 §4, 2015; Ord. 1881 (part),
2006; Ord. 1709 §1 (part), 1994).
3
Section 17.64.040, Off -Street Parking Requirements
C. Accessible Parking Requirements. Where parking is provided accessory to a building, accessible
parking shall be provided, constructed, striped, signed and maintained as required by ORS 447.233, and
Section 11041106 of the latest Oregon Structural Specialty Code as set forth in this section.
1. The minimum number of accessible parking spaces shall be provided for all uses in accordance
with the standards in Table 17.64 Oregon Structural Specialty Code, Minimum Number of
Accessible Parking Spaces. Parking-spaces--used4 meet--t-he-standards mn Ta le 17,64 M3,
A.Ainifflu.m Number of _Accessible Parking Spaces; shall be counted toward meeting off-street
parking requirements in Tables 17.64.02A and 17.64.02B, Residential and Non -Residential Off -
Street Parking Requirements. The accessible parking requirements Set f9Fth iR Table 17.64.03,
Mi+aiFRu+n-Number-0f-AGcess ble-Par-king-Spaces-are minimum requirements and are not subject to
reductions per subsection (B)(1) of this section;
2. -Accessible -parking sm_es-and-sha4-tie
path nr
3-Accsssil3la-spacss shall-be-gra�Fped air6 wh re ^fie
ReWirorl, ssaFP-pavemerat4Tr afk�ng"er#ifyirlg
at a- -iRehe&-aFid-Re-meFe4ian--seventy-t-wo-inches-a-ha, e-paverner�tevel-
PaFi
Total Manmmum
n
Numb
nMon.
\/art Anneccihle
;RaFking SpaGes
nwide
Annessoble
rta vcTurTc
Parking SpaGes
man.
n
aGGess
fOF
With
wade
�jsnr
1
.aisle faryanst)aGGess
.�neecc• aisle
1 4� to 26
4-
4-
8
PaFi •
(p"""t/
Total
Annegsihle
aisle
Minimum
n arress
fer •ianst\
Numb
PaFkinrr Spares
aisle,
nwith
Van Annec
P'r-aurin
min.
a66ess ausleaeWe
es
nwide
AGressmble
PaFkinn CnaeS
n
51 to 75
3
4-
2
76 to 400
4
4
3
401 te150
5
4
4
X00
6
4
5
201 to 300
-7
4
6
301 to 400
3
4
7
401 tp 500
S
3
7
501 to 4,000
eaGh lei
**
***
4 004**
a ;000
718 of Column
A***
*Yanr, and Garr, may share
**
**±Bev n out ofevery ei9hf
aGGe
aisles
sihle
parking spaGea
Section 17.67.050 Site Design Standards.
M. Signs.
1. The provisions of this section are to be used in conjunction with the city sign regulations in the Central
Point Sign Code, Chapter 15.24. The sign requirements in Chapter 15.24 shall govern in the TOD district
and corridor with the exception of the following:
a. The types of signs permitted shall be limited only to those signs described in this chapter,
b -Ali -signs ire tk�o-T�D-districi�n�-couidor-sha4l--cor��y-wi#�i��#Ise-destgr�.si�r�da�ds-describedir�
this GhapteF.
eb. Decorative exterior murals are allowed and are subject to review and criteria by planning
commission or architectural review committee appointed by city council.
dc. Signs that use images and icons to identify store uses and products are encouraged.
ed. Projecting signs located to address the pedestrian are encouraged.
2. Sign Requirements. Signs within the TOD district or corridor shall comply with the standards in Table
17.67.050(1).
Table 17.67.050 (1) Sign Req uirements
Sign Type
Permitted
I.MRand MMR
ZONING DISTRICT
HMR (a)(b) C and OS
Yes
EC and GC
Internally Illuminated
Prohibited
Max. Number
Max. Height
1
Sign Area/Building Face
Max. Height (measured from finishe;gra
4 feet
8 feet
20 feet
Sign Area/Building Face
16 sq. ft.
20 feet
50 sq. ft.
Total Sign Area - all buildingfaces
32 sq.ft.
48 feet
100 sq.ft.
Location
Wall and Projecting
Permitted
At entry point to housing complex or subdivision
Yes
utside of publicrlght-of-way
Internally Illuminated
Prohibited
Max. Number
1 No Limit
Max. Height
Lowest part not less than 8 feet above underlying finished grade for projectingsigns
Sign Area/Building Face
8 sq. ft.
Principal facade; 1.5 sq. ft.
for each linear foot of
business frontage, not to
-exceed 2 sq, ft, of frontage if
20' r -o -w.
Sign Area/Building Face
8 sq. ft.
:Secondary facade; 2 sq. ft. of
linear business fronta e
Total Sign Area - all buildin faces
16 sq. ft
Determined by linear
distance of building
frontage
Location
Permitted
S; its shall not oro ect more than 4feet from a buildin wall unless attached to a canopy
Yes
Internally Illuminated
Prohibited
Max. Number
2
4
Max. Height
3feet
Sign Area/Building Face
6 sq. ft.
32 sq. ft.
Total Sign Area - all buildin faces
24 sq. ft
64sq. ft.
Location
Outside of street right-of-way
Time Limit
Permitted
120da s
Yes
Internally Illuminated
Prohibited
Max. Number
1perdriveway
2per driveway
Max. Height
3 feet
Sign Area/BuildinFace
6sq. ft.
Total Sign Area - all buildin faces
24 sq. ft.
Location
Adjacent to private driveway or sidewalk
Permitted
No No CUP
No
Internally Illuminated
NA Per CUP
NA
Max. Number
NA Per CUP
NA
Max. Height
NA 30feet
NA
Maximum Sign Area
NA 500 sq. ft.
NA
Location
NA Per CUP
NA
Notes:
(a) Forground commercial uses in the HMR District
(b) Forresidentlal uses in the HMR District
(c) Scoreboards allowed only as a conditional use within the Civic District. Standards in Section 17.67.050(M)(3) maybe waived at the
descretionofthe Planning Commission
(d) Sidewalk A -Frame Boards (1) within fixed dimensions and notobstructingpublic right ofway
(e) Temporary commercial banners to promote grand openings, 30-60days peryearmaximum with planning permit
DMMRYADa\/h\"anrAC Zaes
EC and G—C zones
�rees#ar�dir�g
Maiiirrium
def
Heigh
Sign area peF
building faG
Total sign l
�klli�IRQ--�a6AS
4-
4 feet.
16 s e feet
17 square feet.
-
20 feet.
60 square feet.
100 squarefeet.
LesatiGR
At entry point(s) to housing GOmplex o
X61.
Outside f the PUbl!G right of way.
Wall and PFejeGting
MaxirnuFn
AI, -MbeF
Heigh
Sign area per
building @
Total s{g area all
bNfldFRQfaGes
-
Lowest part at least R feet above u Rd9F' ono
9--saoquaFee--feet.
16 sn„a feet.
NA 10FAFt.
Lowest pert at least 9 feet ahnve w nde4yinn
1 _1 2 square feet with a maxim, im of 50
square feet POF SlOR.
perireeteF.
Lesa#ien
Signs shall not pMeGt more than 4 feet fFc)m a
Signs shall RGt pFejeGt FneFe th;-;n 4 fp-R-t from
TempGFafy
Number
Height
�FC,�ri-are GQ
Tota rare"
AFnaxmF;;um of 2 lawm sareigns peFFnmtted. All
4 fee+ mavim� �rrm
R square feet.
T
24 square feet.
4
4 feet for freestanding sm@ns and up to
32 SquafefeQ�
64 squaFe feet.
sign4ype
LIVID IIAIIAD YIIAD (a) /hl r and OS ZAnL'S
Fr and rr 7ones
faces
Tisa@ lurnFt
Of the StFeet Fight of way.
4-2 -
C), -tF;Ode of the siFeet right-er-v way-.
420-d y&
Do rAntienai
Maximum
Number1
Heigh
Sign aFea peF
building faGe
Total G __.;II
building faGes
LesatmeFi
-
sign per driveway.
3 feet.
6-squarefeet.
Meet.
-
2 signs per driveway.
3 feet.
6 sure feed
32 square foot
Total Cine Area Der
LGt
All sign faGes
R 6 .ere feet in 1 11AD
32 square feet in MMR, HMR, G, and •
0-.2- -squares€eet-pef-tinea#-foot of -building
PeFimeteF
3. Sign Materials. Unless otherwise exempt, or authorized bV the Planning Commission, all signs must
comply with the following design criteria:
a. The base materials for a freestanding sign shall be natural materials including stone, brick, or
aggregate.
i signs ar�d s p{�ort+rig s rust�arai$lemer�ts shall. be-constructed-o€-raaeta] -or--stene-with-woo"r
metali-nfoFinationaHetteFieg-tea-pta'miss or--ynthe#lc ter+al-shall-be,ailowed,-6XC'e t-f4Dt
projeGting�awnlr+g-signs; whiGh..gay-be-carwas-or-sim- 41ar--fabrt�
eb.. Sign-lettering-shaEl--be-I mite4-tG-+xteeA.4nG aes-maximum-ire-height. Building/sign
proportionality.
dc. Sign illumination shall be limited to external illumination to include conventional lighting and
neon, if neon is applied to the sign plane area. External illumination is understood to include 'back
lit' or 'halo' lighting. Internally illuminated signs are prohibited.
4. Prohibited Signs.
a. Internally illuminated signs;
b. Roof signs;
c. Reader boards;
d. Sidewalk A beaFd ;
ed. Flashing signs
fe. Electronic message/image signs on which copy is created through the use of a pattern of
lights in a dot matrix configuration, which may be changed intermittently;
Qf. Bench signs;
hg. Balloons or streamers;
C(part), 2000).
. (Ord. 1971 §4 (Exh. C) (part), 2013; Ord. 1815 §1 (part), Exh.
`rr
ATTACHMENT B
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No: 16011
INTRODUCTION
The text amendments to Sections 17.08.410; 17.32.020; 17.64.040 and 17.67.050 constitute
major text amendments to the Central Point Municipal Code because they are legislative
policy decisions and not an application of policy to a specific development application. The
amendments are intended to add clarity in some sections and remove redundancy in others.
These findings are prepared in four (4) parts to address the statewide planning goals, the
applicable elements of City's Comprehensive Plan, public facilities and the Transportation
Planning Rule as required by CPMC 17.05.500 and 17.10.600.
PART 1 CPMC LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENT
17.10.200 Legislative amendments.
Legislative amendments are policy decisions made by city council. They are reviewed using
the Type IV procedure in Section 17.05.500 and shall conform to the statewide planning
goals, the Central Point comprehensive plan, the Central Point zoning ordinance and the
transportation planning rule provisions in Section 17.10.600, as applicable.
Finding: The Central Point Planning Commission initiated the proposed code
amendments by resolution to clarify language in the zoning chapter relative to signs in
the TOD district; permitted uses in the C -N, Neighborhood Commercial district and
requirements for Accessible Parking.
Conclusion: A text amendment is reviewed as a Type IV, Legislative decision.
17.05.500 Type IV procedure (legislative).
G. Decision -Making Criteria. The recommendation by the planning commission and the
decision by the city council shall be based on the following factors:
1. Whether the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals;
2. Whether the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan; and
3. If the proposed legislative change is particular to a particular site, the property
and affected area is presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and
transportation networks to support the use, or such facilities, services and transportation
networks are planned to be provided concurrently with the development of the property.
PART 2 STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS:
17.05.500 G. 1. Whether the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning
goals;
Page 1 of 6
is
GOAL 1. CITIZEN INVOL VEMENT - To develop a citizen involvement program
that insures the opportunity for citizens to be involved in all phases of the
planning process.
Finding, Goal 1: The proposed text amendment does not enhance, or detract, from
citizen participation in the City's planning process. A duly noticed public hearing is
scheduled for June 7, 2016 to review the proposed text amendment.
Conclusion, Goal 1: Consistent.
GOAL Z LAND USE PLANNING - To establish a land use planning process and
policy framework as a basis for all decision and actions related to use of
land and to assure an adequate factual base for such decisions and actions.
Finding Goal 2: Element I of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan addresses the
Goal 2 requirement that plans and implementing ordinances be revised on a periodic
cycle to take into account changing public policies, community attitudes and other
circumstances; as such the proposed code amendment provides a process and policy
framework as a basis for land use decisions.
Finding Goal 2: The proposed text amendment is in accordance with CPMC Section
17.10.200 and therefore, does not modify or otherwise affect the City's planning
process as set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments serve
to provide clarity and design flexibility and are complimentary to the policy direction
of the use of both mixed-use zoning and conventional zoning.
Conclusion Goal 2: Consistent.
Goal 3. AGRICULTURAL LANDS - To preserve and maintain agricultural lands.
Finding Goal 3: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise affect
lands designated for agricultural use.
Conclusion Goal 3: Not applicable.
Goal 4. FOREST LANDS - To conserve forest lands by maintaining the forest land
base and to protect the state's forest economy by making possible
economically efficient forest practices that assure the continuous growing
and harvesting of forest tree species as the leading use on forest land
consistent with sound management of soil, air, water, and fish and wildlife
resources and to provide for recreational opportunities and agriculture.
Finding, Goal 4: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise affect
lands designated for forest use.
Conclusion, Goal 4: Not applicable.
Page 2 of 6
M
GOAL 5. OPEN SPACE, SCENIC AND HISTORIC AREAS, AND NATURAL
RESOURCES - To protect natural resources and conserve scenic and
historic areas and open spaces.
Finding Goal 5: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise affect
lands designated as natural, scenic, or historic resources.
Conclusion Goal 5: Not applicable.
GOAL 6. AIR, WATER, AND LAND RESOURCES QUALITY- To maintain and
improve the quality of the air, water and land resources of the state.
Finding Goal 6: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise affect
regulations managing the quality of air, water and land resources.
Conclusion Goal 6: Not applicable.
GOAL 7. AREAS SUBJECT TO NATURAL HAZARDS AND DISASTERS - To
protect people and property from natural hazards.
Finding Goal 7: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise affect
regulations protecting the citizens of Central Point from natural hazards.
Conclusion Goal 7: Consistent.
GOAL 8. RECREATION NEEDS -To satisfy the recreational needs of the citizens of
the state and visitors and, where appropriate, to provide for the siting of
necessary recreational facilities including destination resorts.
Finding Goal 8: The proposed text amendment dues not involve, or otherwise affect
the City's provision of necessary recreational facilities.
Conclusion Goal 8: Not applicable.
GOAL 9. ECONOMY OF THE STATE — To provide adequate opportunities
throughout the state for a variety of economic activities vital to the health,
welfare, and prosperity of Oregon's citizens.
Finding Goal 9: The proposed text amendments do not alter the City's provision of
adequate economic opportunities. The text amendment as a choice, affords design
options that can be better suited to the city and the available market.
Conclusion Goal 9: Consistent.
GOAL 10. HOUSING - To provide for the housing needs of citizens of the state.
Finding Goal 10: Aside from providing a choice of existing and adopted
development standards, the proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise
affect regulations that address the City's housing needs.
Page 3 of 6
13
Conclusion Goal 10: Consistent.
GOAL M. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES -To plan and develop a timely,
orderly and efficient arrangement of public facilities and services to serve
as a framework for urban and rural development.
Finding Goal 11: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise affect
the City's provision of timely, orderly and efficient public facilities and services. The
proposed text amendment does not cause an increase in the demand for public
facilities. Water service is available within the City.
Conclusion Goal 11: Consistent.
GOAL 12. TRANSPORTATION- To provide and encourage a safe, convenient and
economic transportation system.
Finding Goal 12: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise affect
the City of Central Point Transportation System Plan or modify CPMC Section
17.05.900, Traffic impact analysis.
Conclusion Goal 12: Consistent.
GOAL 13 ENERGY - To conserve energy.
Finding Goal 13: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise affect
and development standards or regulations that address conservation of energy.
Conclusion Goal 13: Not applicable.
GOAL 14. URBANIZATION- To provide for an orderly and efficient transition from
rural to urban land use, to accommodate urban population and urban
employment inside urban growth boundaries, to ensure efficient use of
land, and to provide for livable communities.
Finding Goal 14: The proposed text amendment does not involve, or otherwise
affect, regulations addressing and regulating the transition from rural to urban lands.
Conclusion Goal 14: Not applicable.
PART 3 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
17.05.500 (G) (2)(m) The request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive
plan;
Finding: The amendments to Sections 17.08.410; 17.32.020; 17.64.040 and 17.67.050
are consistent with CPMC and the comprehensive plan. This modification is
complimentary to the policy direction of the use of both mixed-use zoning and
conventional zoning.
Page 4 of 6
14
Conclusion: Consistent
1. Transportation
Finding: The City of Central Point Transportation System Plan 2030 (TSP) replaces
Chapter XI, Circulation/Transportation of the Comprehensive Plan. The TSP provides
an inventory of the City's existing transportation system, including street standards. This
element of the Comprehensive Plan addresses Statewide Planning Goal 12,
Transportation.
Finding: The proposed text amendment will not cause an increase in land uses that
would result in levels of travel or access that would be inconsistent with the City's
functional street classification system for existing and planned transportation facilities.
Conclusion: Consistent
PART 4 TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RULE
17.10.600 Transportation planning rule compliance.
Section 660-012-0060(1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged
comprehensive plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or
planned transportation facility, the local government shall put in place measures as
provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that allowed land uses are consistent with the
identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g. level of service, volume to
capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment significantly
affects a transportation facility if it would:
a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
c) As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted
transportation system plan:
Page 5 of 6
(A) Allow types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or
access that are inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or
planned transportation facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility
that is otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable
performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
15
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(a): The proposed text amendment serves to provide
CPMC consistency, review process and measurable code standards. The proposed
text amendment will not cause any changes to the functional classification of any
existing or planned transportation facilities.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(a): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(b): The proposed text amendment serves to maintain the
density standard of residential property consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed text amendment will not cause a change to standards implementing the
City's transportation system.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(b): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A): The proposed text amendment will not cause an
increase in land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that would be
inconsistent with the City's functional street classification system for existing and
planned transportation facilities.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B): The proposed text amendment will not cause a
reduction in the performance of any existing or planned transportation facilities
below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or
Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): The proposed text amendment will not cause the
worsening of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected
to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the
TSP or Comprehensive Plan.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): No significant affect.
Summary Conclusion: As proposed, the text amendments are in conformance with the
acknowledged Comprehensive Plan, Transportation System Plan and Central Point
Municipal Code.
Page 6 of 6
16
ATTACHMENT C
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 831
A RESOLUTION APPROVING MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 17 ZONING
FILE NO. 15016
Applicant: City of Central Point
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2016 the Planning Commission, at a duly scheduled public hearing,
considered minor amendments to Chapter 17 Zoning of the Central Point Municipal Code ("CPMC")
as follows, and as specifically identified in Attachment "A — Staff Report dated June 7, 2016):
1. Section 17.08.410 TOD District and Corridor Definitions and Use, specific;
2. Section 17.32.020 C -N, Neighborhood Commercial District, Permitted Uses;
3. Section 17.64.040 (C) Off -Street Parking and Loading, Accessible Parking Requirements; and
4. Section 17.67.050 (M) Design Standards for TOD, Site Design Standards, Signs.
WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Planning Commission that the above referenced code amendments
only serve to clarify administration of Chapter 17 and as such are considered minor amendments and
as such do not alter current land use policy or modify standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by
this Resolution No. 831, does hereby forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to
approve the amendments as set forth in the Staff Report dated June 7, 2016 attached hereto by
reference as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7'' day
of June 2016.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 7a' day of June 2016.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 831 (06-07-2016)
17