Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - July 17, 2001CITY flF CENTRAIl POINT PLANNING CflMMISSI4N AGENbA J~xly 17, 2001 - 7;00 p,m. ~ ~ ~ Next Planni~~g Commission Resolution No. 522 I. MEETING CALLED Tfl ORDER IL RQLL CALL Chuck Piland -Candy Fish,1^3on Foster, Karolyne Johnson, John LeGros, Paul Lunte and Wayne Riggs III. CflRRESPflNDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval ofJune 5, 2401, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VL BUSINESS Page 1-12 A. Public Dearing to review an application for a variance from the minimum ten foot setback requirement between structures and a proposed swimming pool at 3445 Snowy Butte Lane, The applicant is requesting that a swimming pool be constructed approximately six feefi froze two existing structures. The subject property is locafied in the R_i-8, Residential Single Family zoning district on Map 37 2Vi~ IOI~B, Tax Lot 8203. 13-24 B. Public Dearing to review an application for a variance from the minimum. ten foot setback requirement between structures and a swimming pool at 752 Jean Louise Circle. The applicant is requesting that a proposed second story deck be constructed approximately four feet from an existing swimming pool. The subject property is located in the R-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district on Map 37 2W IOCB, Tax Lot 1.200. 25-33 C. Public Dearing to review an application for a conditional use permit that would allow the continued use ofthe Crater High School Land Lab and the addition of three sport playing fields on School District d property. The subject property is located in the R-L, Residential Low Density zoning district on Map 3~ 2W 3G, Tax Lot 2200. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT City of Cent~~al Point Planning Comnxission ~/5/2001 ~. MEETING CALLED TO t)RDER AT '7:00 I'.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Kaz•oly~xe 3ohzxson, Johzx LeGros, Paul Lunte, Don Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. Also in attendazxce were Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; Matt Samitore, Planning Technician and Dave Arkezxs Planzxing intern. III. CC}R:RE~P(~NDENCE There was correspondence relating to items "B" and "C» IV. MIN[TTES Commissioner Lunte made a motion to approve the minutes from the May 1, 2Q01 meeting as presented. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. RC}LL CALL: Fish, yes; Johnson, abstained, LeGros, yes; Lunte, yes; Foster, yes and Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. A ublic hearin re ardin a tentative subdivision that would create seven arcels in the Mt. View Plaza commercial develo went on Jackson Count Assessnxent Plat 3'72WQ2D Tax Lots 1140, 12(}0, and I2[ll. The project area is located in tlxe C_4 Tourist and 4ffzce Professional zoning district. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department staff report. The applicant, Mountain View Plaza L.L.C, proposed subdzviding three existing lots into a total of seven lots to meet commercial market demands. All the lots meet the required lot dimensions for the C-4 zoning district. While all connections to infrastructure are currently available on the lot, the sewer system would need improvement to meet the Phzmbing code. Karl Tappez•t, District Engineer, from BCVSA stated that accoz•ding to Mate law, the applicants will have to provide individual pumping stations for lots 3 and 4, or hoof. up into the Public System located in the Right-of~way of Interstate S. These requirements are part of the plumbing code and will need to be worked out prior to issuance of a final plat. Matt Samitore, Planning Technician, informed the commission that if a deviation from the original Site Plan happens as a result of this subdivision, the Commission will be seeing the new development as part of a Site Plan review. Commissioner Lunte made a mation to adapt Resolution Number 518, approving the Tentative Subdivision of 37 ZW OZD Tax Lots 1100, 1200, and 1201 subject to the recaznmended canditians of approval and with approval Pram BCVSA. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Nation passed unanimously. B. A Public hearin re ardin a tentative Planned Unit Develo mcnt that would create 1 S arceis and a small rivate ark on Jackson Count Assessment Plat 3'T2W4iC Tax Lot 1244 and 372W4ICA Tax Lot 314{}. The ro'eet area is located in tl~e R-2 Residential Two-Family zoning district. Mr. Crerschler presented the Planning and Public Works staff reports. In April of 2444 the Planning Commission approved the tentative plan for Brookdale Gardens PUD. Under the previous approval, the development proposed a 38 lot subdivision involving three tax lots. That tentative PUD has expired with one of the property owners opting out. The applicant would like to introduce a new PUD proposal creating I5 lots from. two remaining tax lots, taking access from Meadowbrook Drive. The applicant will provide an elongated street plug along a majority of the south side of Brookdale Avenue and will provide documentation regarding infrastructure reimbursement for the future developer of the lot to the South. An additional i 6 feet of right-of way will be needed when the property to the south develops. The street plug will be released by the City when a development request is made for the property to the South. The pocket park will be, reconfigured wifih a cui de sac that will replace the four proposed parking spaces in order to meet the Fire Districts needs for turning requirements. A portion of the privately owned pocket park will be reserved as a future street connection to undeveloped parcels located north of this development. City staff has been directed by the Commission to work with the adjoining property owners in acquiring a master plan for additional park space and pedestrian access to Hamrick Road that can be attached to the private pocket park. Eventually, the private pocket park will be transferred to tl~e city. Kevin Hering, the applicant, and Bob Heathan~er, the agent for the Applicant, stated that they will not be dedicating the street plug to the City, and will provide documentation to justify a reimbursement requesfi for the street. The front setbacks for the garage will be 24 feet and l2 feet for the side loaded garages. The frozxt setback for the liveable portion of the house will be 12 feet. They would also like to deviate from the standard side yard setback for two story structures to be reduced to 5 feet. They would also like to work with staff to clear up some minor inconsistencies concerning private and public improvements listed in the Public Works Staff Report. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 519, approving conditional use permit, preliminary development plan and subdivision for the Broakdale Gardens PU1~, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the retard and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff reports. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed. unanimously. C. Public hearing to review __az~ application for a fence variance at 2799 Gakview Avenue. The a licant is re uestin that oz•#ions of a ro asecl fence be constructed at a hei ht of six feet in a side and setback where the code allows a zuaxiznum hei ht of X12 inches. The sub'ect ro ez is located in the R-1-$ Residential Sin 71e Famil zanin r district an Map 37 2W 01CA. Tax Lot 400~Y, Mr. Gerschler presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicant would like to deviate from the standard side yard setback of 10 feet in order to provide more safety and protection for their children and allow for a bigger mare user friendly backyard. During the review of the application, the Commission indicated difficulty in justifying the unnecessary hardship fznding presented by the applicant. In a related issue, the CC&R's of the subdivision were found to be more restrictive than the municipal code. If the variance were approved, the applicants would need to have written authority from the Home ~3wners Association accepting the fence as proposed. The applicants, Windy and Richard Middleton, stated they would like a bigger back yard since the lot is small and would like the protection. a ~ foot fence would provide them. They would also like to sec the ordinance reviewed and regardless of the decision would build a good looking fence with landscaping. The agent for the applicant, Ray Curl, provided pictures detailing various Fences in Central Point. Mr. Curl stated he would like the variance to be allowed because it would provide a bigger safer back yard for the applicants. Commissioners' Lunte and Johnson stated that the current variance f ndings could conceivably contradict each other. Commissioner Johnson offered to attend a City Council meeting in support of the applicants if they appeal the Planning Commission decision. Commissioner Jahnsan made a motion to deny the proposed variance applicatian based upon inconclusive Ilndings a#' fact, namely the finding that would have demonstrated an unnecessary hardship an the applicant. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. RQLL CALL: Mohan passed unanimously. Staff has attached Planning Commission 521 to this action. D. Public hearing to review a site plan application for the construction of a utility building and si n next to the Ro ue Ex ress 11 coffee sho at 131 North Front. The sub'ect arcel is located in the TC~D-GC, General Commercial zonin district on Ma 372W03D Tax Lot 2300 Mr. Gerschler, presented the Planning Department staff report. The applicants would like to build a 112 square foot storage building towards the south boundary of the property. They would also like to add a Coffee Pot and cup sign structure between the coffee shop and Highway 99. The buildings need to be separated by at least 10 feet, and the height of the sign cannot exceed 42 inches in height. There is ample parking an the site. Since this is one of the newest developn•zents in the new TDD development City staff would like to work with the applicants to meet the landscaping requirements. A Deferred Improvement Agreement needs to be made with the land owner for sidewalks on the property. The applicants will also have to install a back flaw prevention device far the landscaping. The applicants stated that the utility building will resezr€ble a caboose. Catnissianer Fish made a motion to adopt Itesalution Number 520, approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval and obtaining a deferred irnpravement agreement with the land owner far sidewalks. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL; Motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Johnson was excused from the meeting. Commissioner Lunte made a motion to extend the meeting past 10;00 P.M. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. RE3LL CALL; Motion passed unanimously. E. A review for the lacement of a swimmin ool in the Rosewood Estates develo meat on Assessment Ma 372W 1 OCA Tax Lot 5910. The sub`ect arcei is located in an R-1 Residential Single Family zoning district. Mr. Gerschler presented the Planning Department staff report, The applicant would tike to adjust placement of the swimming pool on lot 14 of the Rosewood Estates subdivision. The applicant was notified that City staff had received a complaint from a neighbor directly across the street who wanted the pool placed elsewhere. The applicant then presented the Commission with a document signed by a majority of the homeowners in the Rosewood Association indicating that the pool location was acceptable. Ke would like the place the pool within 15 feet from the front property line. Since Rosewood Lane is a private drive with no further expansion planned, the pool will be positioned with a 15 foot minimum setback measured from edge of water to tl~e street right of way. City staff concurred with the reduced setback as it also moves the structure away from the steep banks of Jackson Creek. Commissioner Fish made a motion approving the location far the swimming goal for the Rosewood Estates Subdivision, based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the retard anal subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff report. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL; Recommendation passed unanimously. VII MISCELLANEOUS The Planning Commission has asked that the City Council consider a review and the fence and variance cardinances. The Commission has had several fence variance applications in the past year and in each situation the parcels have laeen corner lots. ~t issue is the required ~2 inch maximum fence height fear fence sections that encf•caach wishing the required 1 ~ f~a©t sr'de yard setlaack. Several of the G'cammissieaners have identi f ed that the findings for thefence variance are n©t clearly defznecl and present conflicting requirements. VIII ADJ(}URNMENT Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. RC?LL CALL; Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10;30 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT i-TEARING L:~ATi=;: Duty i 7, ~OCl1 TO; Central Point Planning Commission FROM: I~en C~ersehler, Community Planzzer SUBJECT; Request for a variance from the zninimuzxz ten foot setback between a proposed swimming pool and existing structures at 3445 Szaowy Butte Z.,ane on 37 2W I ODB, Tax Lot 82{I3. Owner Applicant; Ryan L. Griz~ell 3445 Snowy Butte Lane Central Point, t~regon 97502 Property Description/ 372WlODB, Tax Lot 8203 - 0.25 acres Zoning:. R-lµ6, Residential Single Family District Summary The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum ten foot setback that the municipal code requires between a building foundation and swimming pools. There are no building code issues that enter into the variance request. Apt~ticab~ Law CPMC 15.22.OI0 et seq. ~ Privately (Jwned Swimming Pools CPMC 17.2{x.010 et seq. - R-l, Residential Single Family District Discussion The applicant Ryan Griz~ell is asking that the Planning Commission grant a variance from the minimum ten foot setback requirement between two structures and a proposed swimming pool based upon a hardship created by two easements anal the location of existing stz-uctures { Attachment "A"}. I4is parcel is lot 2 of the Dixie Qne Subdivision which has a 20 foot wide driveway easement to benefzt lot 1 along the North lot line. A 10 foot wide Public Utility Easement has been recorded along the South lot Izne. The house and garage flank the proposed pool to the East and West and would be approximately 6 feet from each of the foundations to the edge of water. The proposed pool will be an in-ground model that has a depth of three feet at the edges and six feet at it's deepest point { Attachment "B"). .~, The Planning and Building Departments have discussed the reasoning for the existing tez~ foot setback requirement in the code since the cities of Medford and Ashland would permit the pool to be constructed as proposed on the applicant's site plan. Cl'MC 17.08.3$0 describes structures as "anytJ2ing constructed or built which rec~z.rires lracatic~n ran the groarnd, ineltrding si~rinan2ing~t~t~ls, co~~ered~atios, fences and z~crlls" and C~'MC 15.22.030 stipulates tl~e setbaci~ as "nt~ le.s~.s~ than ten feet front edge Qf water to fQUndati~rn line". Structural integrity and safety are two issues that likely would have compelled the City Couzacil to pass the current regulations. Structurally, the required setback may Dave been designed to preserve the integrity of the house foundation from being undermined by the pool's weight az~d lass afround material. Most pools constructed today are gradual depth structures which place less load on the ground surrounding the pool with the issue of structural integrity mitigated through engineering. The Building Official has stated that the proposed pool can comply with the building code and the applicant will need to provide a detailed set of plans to the Building Department for review. Possible safety concerns with this application would nat be any greater risk tlxan pools that would meet the current setback requirements. Mandatory fencing and/or alarzxzs will be required by the building code. Notices to surrounding property owners were sent out by mail and the 1?fanning Department has yet to receive any response concerning the variance application {Attachment `°C"}. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of La~_v iariance 1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as beautification or safety; ^ The addition of a swimming pool at a private residence increases the livability far the property owner together with increased property value which benefits the City's tax base. Other than this there would be no added adantages. 2. The Variance wi11 not have any signifzcant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; ~ The canstructian of the pool as proposed will not result in any known adverse impacts upon the neighborhood and will have all of the safety equipment required by the building Bade. A public notice was mailed to surrounding parcels and staff did not receive any comments. There don't appear to be any similar situations that would encourage other requests and make this instance "precedence settings'. ~~ 3. The Variance will utilize property within tl~e intent and the purpose ofthe coning district: ~ Swimming pools are commonly canstrizcted within residentially zoned districts. 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to property in the sarrze zonic~g district; and ^ This parcel is a portion of a flag lot development, There is a 20 faat wide driveway access easement along the South praperty line and a 1.0 foot wide Public Utility Easement adjacent the North praperty line. These easements combined with the lacation of the existing hawse and garage have affected the lacation of the pool. S. The conditions for which. the Variance is requested were not sclF imposed through the applicant's own actions, not the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ^ The easements and structures were pre-existing and not imposed by the applicant. The applicant has submitted findings of fact for consideration by the Commission {Attachment B}. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: l .Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the Variance subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment "D"}; or 2. Deny the proposed Variance; or 3. Continue the review of the Variance application at the discretion of the Cozxzmission. Attachments A. Site Pian and Pool Elevations B. Applicant's Letter of Project L7escription and Findings of Fact C. Notice of Public 1-learing D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval ~~: _ St?AO` 1 ~ ~ I ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ conc. • ~~ I I ~ ~ «~ r~~~v~i~a~ ~ ~~~~~~ I I ~ c t ]' ~ 1 ~ r~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ,~ ~ 1 ~ t I ~ 1 . ~ 4. ~ _ __ I ~ I ,q: ~~ € ~ E ~ 4 ~ ~ 1 I 4 ++~~ ~tyy,,T~~~ 1 E ~irCS~,~.111.l.~, 1 1 1 I III i..,,»..._........- mot--°---.....:..:..»»«»....~ 1 4 1 ~ j ~ { iI4 ~ i E ! fff ~ i !! 4 ~ j 4 E ~ ~_..r.....«.... 4' .. s t~ ~~~ ~ t ~.. ~ ~ ~~ ~ (I 3 ~ ac~.oa' ~{ 5u4tUY ~3U~ 1.AN~ Ar r ~s ~f~ Nary%s .~,M.~= ~rax t,a~ sao3 (5Q31779-?71.~i ~sa~= ~~ ~ ~ ~g ...~.~- MES p~eJ"8~"'7 ~'~' p~x~~ ort~ su~c~, s~~. ~.or ~z ~„Y, c~ux~a~ ~a~x~.oR~~o~ =-., P.fl. 8{~X 1A72 MEDFO~D, fl~ 97501 . ~~ 4 1 tJ i~I3 t,} ~~ G~ity of C~~.~~I Fraint Piannin~ 1~e,~~artrnen't r ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~F". N 1'! t ~f - r .~ . r__.._--_-...._- j beneficiary of certain Trust (deeds recorded 1993 as Docurxren# No. 93-19318, ~Yfficial ascribed herein, hereby release frorxm the lien aced to the public for public use. 1994 ~~ ,/ ~~.:- ~*' Title: ~,« ~tcrtaQ.,~ .~-~J ~ 1~ ~.~, ~, POSE I ~ f L JOSEPH STREET 1! h- i Fi 1•- F- Y. 1\t !1 rS tr 1--i J1 `., r- i F ! Y 4^ \J I 1 L.. t.. I \ 1 * tiJ , ..r t i T i J^t ..! L.. 4 t, ~~{.(.~ ~~.~.$ of Na, 12288 t r\ ~ J r\ V J ,t r t !rc! j...1 ~`xf t i::~ 10' PLTE S89'S3'13"E 589'54'40"~ 190,98' ~--. -. 60,01' ~. .~ -'` ~ .-~---. ~,~..._ 1 ~~-~s.~,~ r,. f Q' Pubtaa Utsdtiy Sasemertt "1' ,i "'290,84'---~.,.,~ t~`~ ~ per 1)acicrrzent Na. 85--118284 ~}",~~ O,fficia.t Records of ~,/ .~ 50 •°`- `~.~~ O Q Jac ~ '~?,l 25~ 25' 1 r!':! t ~ / ~ ~ ~ {C/L. Easement ,for PttE. ~~ '~' ,Ingress and Egress,} c\+ (i o' PUE) ~~` ~ssg5a'o~~ 1 s~9`5e'o3' ~ ~ 34.70' I ~ _M....... 5aor~*_ SSJ'58'03"E ~ ' c' ~ ~`~8 50.00$ / w 5'to fenceline 10' PUB} ~ '~ '~JQrJt+~{~'=3L ~ ~ ~ ~ ('PdRCBL 1) s,, ~"~'~ 1 <~ JJ , ~ 32.62' ~ O ~ ~ Q t~ { ~~ i 42,5' L~T # oo ~" fQ,778 Sq.F~ R=2.5' ° o ~ ""1 ~ ~' t 8, X20 S[j. F`t. v~~~30' 0' ~ rn ~ ..~ _. ~ 1 C1' PU~t"} t2--50' `~ ~.. _._ ~ r°n ,•J Lt.,li 124.93' 106.96' 259.83' ~~~ ~ , ., r, 1 ._._ ~ ~ i ! r~ , 425.23' ° ~ ~' ~ ~_~ ~ 'r~T il1^^" ~,^,~,,,, ...,....~~ d' ~ .--~---~ ~~'sr~r 7.117' ~ ~t,1"~ ; ; :; ; 58'a3"~' 8,95' _ ~ , <_ ,r 1 6'4' f 6'58" L = 58.84" R = 4C~.OD' LC = x4r~s's.c' x~ 59.68' o 44'52" ~ 92.62' ~ ~64'4f'92" ~ = i72.4r R = 64.44' rc = N88'ar98"A~` t 18.99' cs ~4 ~ ~ ~ ___. ~. ~"` ~ 7 i ~ Jr „ ! < i , ! 4 ] t L.f r t• \J r <1i+ ^T± ,l_ ~~ i^ rY~ r'" ti \^J \ r ! j i ilJ t ~ t 4A3 f1" r. l \ i^r !.i 111 ^~^ .-, ,_. ~__ .. ~'.'. Ryan L. Grizell 3445 Snowy Butte Lane Central Point, flR 975(}2 June 6, 2{}01 City of Central Point Planning Dept. 155 South 2nd Street Central Paint, C?R 97502 Re: Project Description City Planning Commission: City of ~.:;entral F:oirit Planning ~epartrnent 4n the day of July 17, 2001, Ryan Grizzell, home owner of 3445 Snowy Butte Lane (tax lot #$203) located in the city of Central Paint, respectfully requests consideration of variance in regards to city code specifying set backs specifically related to in ground swimming pools. Current Cade requires construction of pools to allow set back from. structure foundations to waters edge at a minimum of 1 {} feet. I have consulted with Central Point Planning Technician Matt Samitare to find the following fact, Chapter 18, Figure 181J1 of The Uniform Building Cade establishes set backs from struch~arral foundations by determining an imaginary line drawn at a 45 degree angle from the horizontal plane of the foundation. The line cannot intercept any part of the pool underneath the ground. By applying this formula, we see that as long as the pool rests on the same plane as the foundation ar above, the set back can be determined by considering the depth of the pool {example: 6 feet of vertical depth from the pools edge would require a 6 foot set 1?ack}, In the case of my proposed pool, the hopper actually tapers in at the sides after a vertical depth of 44 inches, allowing less set back with out encroaching an the 45 degree line, The discrepancy is uncertain but worthy of consideration. Furthermore, I have been informed by City Planner George Rubelauf of Medford that if the same pool were constructed in the city of Medford, The s<~tne guidelines would be used. The city of Ashland would also use the same rules. The intent afthis variance is to allow a reasonably sized pool (1~' x 28`} to be ~~ constructed . Due to the detached garage placed an the North side of the lot and the laxge easement to the West, this cannot tae accomplished. Under normal circumstances, setting the pool i 4 .feet from the foundation would not be an issue. With the pre-existing shop located at the North ofthe tot, an addirianal i0 feet of set back must be recognized. Set backs include i 0 Feet North from the house foundation and i 4 feet South from the shop foundation. The proposed pxoject must be located in the vicinity between the two structures. If the pool is repositioned moxe closely to the West Side of the lot and a variance is granted allowing use of the Uniform Building Code set backs, the project could be completed. Sincerely, an L G~ ~~ Fl!:NDII'dGS (Section 17.0 of the Central Paint Municipal Cade} I. The strict application of the provisions of this title would result in unnecessary hardship. Due to pre-existing conditions, large easement to the West and detached garage, the provisions for this title would not allow a pool to be constructed at tax lot 82{13. No other option is available for the property, therefore a new property would have to be purchased, Construction of the pool at the current residence is financially obtainable. Purchase ofa new property is not at this time, A. fihe variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood ar the city, such as beauti#ication or safety. "UVhen properly supervised, a pool can be a wonderful safe haven for neighborhood children. I have an eleven year old only child, and I would much rather see he and many of his neighborhood friends congregate around a secured back yard pool rather than out in the t~~affic ofthe street, $. The variance will have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The pool will be fenced and out of plain view of any neighbor maintaining normal daily business. Whether the pool is set back using the Uniform Building Code, or l U feet required by Central Point, makes no difference to the surrounding neighborhood. All other crucial set backs from property lines and easements will be recognized, The goal will be secured in accordance with Uniform Building Code Section 421. C, The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. Once completed, the only use intended for the pool will be private use by the homeowners and invited guests in accordance with 116 zoning, l~. Circumstances affect the properly that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district. The site plan of tax lot #8203 shows a 21 foot wide easement to the West Side of the lot, This prevents construction of the pool to be pushed far enough to the West to allow placement ofthe pool to meet the required foundation set back of 10 feet. If the variance is granted, the pool can be positioned far enough to the East and the South to allow a reasonably sized pool to ~ constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code. E. The conditions fur which the variance is requested were not self imposed through the applicant's awn actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. The original layout of the Dixie One Subdivision called for the said easement in order for xesidents to the North to gain access to flag lots, As a home owner, there is no say in the matter, ~y4 ~~ rfr S d .-~ ,$ _~__ ~ PI,ANN.TN~ l.F'1-~ART.NIE'N~' -~ $~~ 'I'o~~ I-i~an~phrey, AICI' Gp~ P1az~ning 1~irector Ken ~erscl7ler Coznrnenity ~'lanner Matt ~arnitore 1~Ianning Technician Notice of Public ~Vleeting ~~' or ce~tr~I F~i~t Date of Notices June 26, 2401 ~ ~~~~~`~~ `~~~~ ; Piannin~ ~ep~r#~tt~n.'t Meeting Date. Time: Place. NATURE fJF 1v1EETING Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W IODB, Tax Lot 8203. July 17, 2001 x;00 p.. {Approximate) Central Point City hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, C}regon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Paint Planning Commission will review ate application far a Variance that could allow a swimming pool to be constructed. at a distance of six feet from the foundations of two existing structures at 3~~5 Snowy Butte Lane in an R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district. The subject parcel is identified in the records of the The Central Point Planning Commission will review the Variance application to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. Ifthe Commission determines that the application meets the City's standards, a variance from the minimum ten foot setbacks between pools and structures could be issued . CRITERIA F4R DECISI(aN The requirements for Variances are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions on the project approval. Swimming pool setbacks are described in Chapter 1 S. PUBLIC CC7MMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 1'7, 2001. <~ 2. Written comments may be stint in advance of the meeting to Central Paint City klall, 155 South Second Street, Central Paint, {JR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide tl~e basis far an appeal an the matters shall be raised prior to tl~e expiration ofthe comment period Hated above. Any testimony and written comments abo~zt the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of ail evidence relied upon by the applicant are available far public review at City Hall, I55 South Second Street, Ccz~tral Paint, ©regan. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY 4F PR(?CEDUR~ At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comzrzents must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the variance application as submitted, City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~':__.- - l55 South Second Street i Central Point, {~1Z 9'7502 i (54l) 664-3321 i Fax: (541 664-6384 ~~ .,~.. .. ATTACHMENT D REC{)MMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT C4NUITIfJNS OF APPRQVAL l . The approval of the variance shall expire in one year on July 17, 2002 uzzless an application for a building perzzzit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 60 days of Planning Commission approval. lfthe construction is completed on schedule, the variance approval will remain valid indefinitely. 2. The project must comply with ail applicable local, state and federal regulations . . PL.~NNING DEPARTMENT STAFI{ REPORT I-SEARING I.7A'I'E:.Tt~ly 17, 20(} 1 TfJ: Central Paint Planzaing Commission FRAM: R.en Gerschler, Community Planner S~.TBJECT: Request for a variance from the mini:xzum ten foot setback between swimming pool and. structure at '752 Jean Louise Court on 372W 1 OCC, Tax Lot 1200. G-wner Applicants Timothy Case 752 Jean Louise Court Central Point, E~regon 97502 Proper Descriptionl 372W10CC, Tax Lot 1200 - 0.23 acres Zoning: R-1-8, Residential Single Family District Surnznarv The applicant is requesting a variance from the minimum ten foot setback that the municipal code requires between the foundation ofstructures and swimming pools. These are substantive issues with the Building Department. Applicable Law CP1V1C 15.22.010 et seq. -Privately Owned Swimming Pools CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single Family District Discussion The applicant, Tim Case has been working with the city over the past few years to construct a two story home at 752 .lean Louise Court in the Country Meadows Estates Subdivision. This 9,976 square foot parcel has been a challenge for Mr. Case since there have been a large number of restrictive requirements placed to accommodate present and anticipated future traffic on Grant Road. Grant Road is classified as a secondary arterial and has a special setback of sixty feet measured from the centerline of the road. Furthermore, sight vision clearance areas were required at the intersections of Mendolia Way and Grant Road together with Jean Louise Court and Mcndolia Way. There is a 10 foot wide Public Utility Easement adjacent to the three street rights ofway. These physical limitations have resulted in the cu~•ent placement ofthe house, swimming pool and fencing each ofwhicl~ were completed in phases {Attachment "A") During the planning ofthe pool, Mr. Case visited City Kall to f nd the most feasible location and the planning staff provided a "highlighted" copy ofwhere the pool could be placed {Attaclanaent "13"). During a review ofthe pool, city staffwas asked about the proposed covered patio. As a reszllt of dais questioza, tlae Plazanizag and Building Departments met to dzseuss tlae possibility of zaaodifying tlae current ordinance to allow certain types of structures to be located closer to pools depezadezat upoza design and engineering. CPMC 1'7.08.380 describes structures as "anything constr•ueted ar• I~ztilt u1Tiich t•ee~uir•es l~aeatie~n pan the ground, including sutirnming p~~ls, covered patios, ,fences and rsjalls".CPMC 15.22,030 stipulates the setback as "ncz less them ten.feetft°c~ta2 edge cif a~Jr~te~• tc~,foundezti~ln line". A second concern with allowing certain structures to be closer to pools relates to safety, particularly ifthe structure was "climbable" as it could lead to injuzy if a person were to climb and juzaap into the pool. City Attorney Doug Engle was notified of this application and has advised tlae Planning Department that the city will have no liability for injuries that may occur in the future as long as the highest governmental decision body, the City Council endoz•scs the project. Mr. Case would like to proceed with the completioza of the second story deck at this tune and is requesting that the Planning Commission grant a variance from the 10 minimum required setback. I-le has provided a letter of description anal fzndings of fact for consideration by the Commission {Attachment "C"}.The proposed deck would be elevated to 12 feet and horizontal dimensions of 41 feet by 10 feet and would be supported by decorative columns. if approved, the variance would allow the edge of the deck to be constructed approximately 3 'Iz feet from the edge of water at the patio's nearest point. Access to the deck. would be taken from two doors that were previously installed during the original house construction phase. The support structures will be engineered, located and constructed to the satisfaction of the Building Ctffzcial. The deck will have safety railing and alarms as needed to prevent anyone from easily jumping from the deck into the pool. I~Iotices to surrounding property owners were sent out by mail and no comments were received by the Planning Department {Attachment "D"}. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law ha~ianee The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as beautibcation or safety; ^ A swimming pool and the proposed second story deck at this private residence increases the livability 1'or the property owner together with increased property vahze benel~tting the City's tax base, The architecture of the deck and supporting structural columns would accentuate the appearance of the residence, 2. The Variance will not Nava any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; ^ A public notice was mailed to surz•ounding parcels and staff did not receive any comments for or against the application. There don't appear to be any siYnilar situations that would encourage other requests and make this instance "precedence setting" 3. The Variance will utilize property within the intent and the purpose afthe zoning district: ^ While swimming pools are commonly constructed within residentially zoned districts, second story decks have typically been located further away from the edge of water 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to property in the same zoning district; and ^ The applicant has had various limitations on this particular parcel that is located at the intersection of Grant Road anal Mendolia Way, particularly a special setback from Grant Road and a 55 foot site vision area that have resulted in a loss of a large percentage of useable private yard space. 5. The conditions for which the Variance is requested were not self imposed through the applicant's own actions, not the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ~ This particular lot within the Country Meadows Subdivision is limited by special setbacks, easemen#s and Public Utility easements, Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission talfe one of the following actions: l .Adopt Resole#ion No. ,approving the Variance sulaject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Variance; ar ~. Continue the review ofthe Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Site Plan, Structure and Building Elevations B. Map from previous building permit application C. Applicant's Letter of Pz~ojeet Description and Findings of Fact D. Notice of Public ldearing E. Planning Depa~~tment Recommended Conditions of Approval .. G> ~.9 C1i.L~ of ~e~r~ral P~in~ ~~~~~~.~' try tt P~anr~in~ ~~~~az•trn~nt .. -~:° .,.,,, Q'6~"€}21 SIoI'~2~~ Sent ~y; Ti.mot~y Case Rssoc~.ates, Tnc.; ~416653i96; ~.J€r~.-9-Oi 5;Q5F'Iv1; Page 3!5 ~.. .._. .... ~ ~ . _.~ I ( - .i_.... ! .. i i i ~__ ~ ~- ' ~ _ ~ 1 , .... _r.. ._..~ -~-. _,..y.._,,, ' ~' ~ -i--' .. ' a ... ~-__ t.._.~..._ _._~ _~. _~ I ~ t . ..~_... ~. _.__ _... , 1 .. ...~ .y ..... ..~}. .mot- -.«. .. , 1 I ~ ~ i -- r._... .... 1 i .. ! . _..}.... . r. i z T , .~ ... ._ _ _.._ ._ . ~ -~ - ..;. -.~ .. ~. ~-. i t .-.Y_ .~........_... ._.{... _.• ~...... 1 a ..~.._ r , ~ 1 ~ ...~ .. ~ ~ _.a-__.. ... ....._.. r _~ f... .,__... ~ ...-,-.....3--... 3 s 1 E ~-• ~ , ~ 7 I ~ ~ ~ . -i-._... j ..-w.... -._ _ ...... L-.... .. _ ~ .. 3 ! ! i ± 1 .. y i { ___ - . . _...w .._ .-. .. ~ ~ ..1-- ..t.... .. r s.. ,: i : ; ~ ~ z ~ f .. _ ~.... ... _. F ..... ...r. .~.. t 1 r 1 ~` ... I .. ~.._. .t ._~--. s. ~ ~[ ~ i i --r-- ~ ~ ~ ~ i .y__._..~__.. ..«.-~..._ ~ I ~ ~ ~~ _ i r `31. _. i ~ , ~ v~ 1 ~- .-.-~.... _ ~ : { , «.e,..... .}.... .~....~.~_...I., ' .t.....~~. r...i... .._..~~.-.d .(_._....~......f. .r«.....-f--....y i I ~ ...-k. s~,j I - I i I ,Y' r.... 1 . I { :... ._ _.~... i ~ r I ~ . . , w_.. '.. S ! f ~ ~ ' i / i 1 1 ~ . i ~ ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ F......- 1 ..y_..._..~ _ .. - .._, .. s . ~ ! t ...... .. .k .......y. ......V._.... _ _~, _ .... ~, .i i y ~ ~. _.. 1 ' 1 , a ` _. ..._.F.. _. -. - _ ~ ~ ~ S I 7._..-_T ... ~ _. _..~._........ ~ ~ i. _ s .k . _ ° .__ .. -.. ~ 1 i _.._ i j 1 E 3 i } I ~ ~ I _.. - ~.. _~-- i .~~_ - ~ ~ . ..~ . . .,. I ..._.. -~... ., _., _. 1 e t I [ `I . ._j.. ~. .. ...y...........~ ~ I I ( I ... F 1 i j , ~ ~ 1 -I . _.1 , t ... . I f 1 ~ I 1 ~ I ~ 1 f ~ { 3 ~ I i- ..i_ .... .__S{ ~ ~ I , _ _}_._.. ~ r 1 i . ... < .v-..,..., ` 1 - ( i .. ; ..;. , s 3 541~~531~~s Cage Associates, ~~tc.; ~t By: -ti-i~~othy ~vUNTRY ~~'~p~~S ~t1BDI1/1~1~}~ This print is rrr~d~ solely for the purpose of ass#s#ing in ts~~#ing the premises and the crxt~gany assumes no liability fors#lforma#ror+ grin#ed can #hiS map, including zoning, varia#ians, iF arty.sn dirnensirsns and locations ascertained by actual survey. JACKSC}lV COUNTY TITf.~ U1Vl~tt~h# t?F t~RlwGt~N Ti"f`C.~ iritS. +CC3. 5n2 West Main St. {64i} 77~-281 t M+adfvrd, t~r~gon _ ~ ~,' ~ .~~,lo ~~ ~~,is _.,, ~ ~, ~~ -.. .-- f 1 sr3 Jam., ~ „~ 1 t ~" ! 'fix ~ r Y ~,.~^"~ t „~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~ C" ~ ~ ~.~~ ~ 1 ~ ~~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ is ryy +~ A« 'lfy " j7 ~ '' c.: ct~ Cs'1 ~' 0 ..~ ~~ ~' 1'1~~ ~A~~sar~ co iJtj {,7~,V 4n ~~.~~~~ _... 1-70` ~.u.~. '~5 ~~ ..~ t't ~, ~ ~, b~ ~~~. ~ ~ u+, ~ r ~ it?' I~2RIGATT4N ~ASEIdC;N~ ~ ~~ ~.- ~. ~~ tT ~~ Jul_g-Oi rr N ~~. 111 # 1 1% w 5tlfee# zp t•,~ ~ ~- 1 1'3 ~~ t ~~'' ~j 1f JJ I ~ ~ ~~ ,.. ~ ;on ~ ,~ ~ ~,~ ., ,_..r-- -' ~ cc.' ~0~-71'~ ~URVEYC3f2 t t3~ ~i ~. to` P.u.~, ~ ~ ~ t~~ c ~1 89°55'25" ~' s~aa' .~. ~ {~ p'. 'd- v r„ ."'". ....~ ~y.bp' ~~ ~~ n A.+ __._~---- ~ t ,~..._._...~....-- ~ --_u.. ~h,a IS ~.~~~~ ~. rs~r .S-~~bcsr.~iG c~.l-L~ ~"hr~.~"c~o~.+ ~ ,~ ~ :~ ..~"~'ee~~b~Y~-~~s ,s't~e ~r°~'~~ t ~~e .~ h C;it~ 0~ f~#~~ Pfl1At Planning II~partment rw4 ~ ~''" t~,bo, dqo ~:, ~hbo t, .- ~~ © ._..~.--.-- X42 tn~ 5.~.~,a~ lQ ~©.T' ~~~~ ~~ . ~~ ! Q~ r+%~ C-~, 4 dry ~.~or~t V l~ 4 L f cr• ~~ ~ CT. ~' ~:. ~„ . ,,.~,,, Q .. 6 fro+f eo-c; ' r ( 1, ~' j~~ • # x 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~4., ~: <-, 7 .`#i ,~ ~. / ~ ~~ ~ `' ~ .r-r 4 ..+..+ i ~t ~..._.__... .~...__ F nce Issued pate: nce Not Issued ~'.=y~rs 7 ~ s s s ,~r_ ~.~ l, .. ~ ~~ t f J., . , . ;7 1 L ~i ~ ~~ ~~~ ' ~ ~.~ • ~ ..., a ~ ~ %~... ..~ ... , ~ y ,. - x ~, y , . r.., ~ . ~Y C t t. t'~ ~ ~_ r°r ~, ~"T`Ctl:'il 1 P~71(`Y~9~ s.iza;;~; I yy~~a t...~E~?1' + +~~}7lt~l, ~~(' is f j~}_:~ ! I v ::t' ell ~7:1'C~j~ !:~ ~ rC~~ 3,1.~'?o.tsl( ., . i mr~ « .-_. ~~~,., } 1 i; ~ ~ .~ ~3itl`~ ~; (~`,~t ~L1 k t:Sl'll~~~~ .~sS~l7'if,, ~~)_t ~3.('C~~~ r t_ ~ t~~ t ~ 77 .. .1wi,:-0.11 ~Cl4.: ~T~ li1C: li., ~~`~ 11(;x, _~ {Si. (: i;f 1, 1'`~"$lj - , , ,. ~ I ~ i ~ ~. ,i. [ ~'ft~t 3~; i ' I I„~ ~ i ~~ i ~ is s~ r ~ - ~ ff 1 ~ =' d~ y ~ '.~~. ~,. tL~C~}.. l ~~1,~ e,ta.. I ~4'Y.E.I ~ ~ ) ~~}{Y ~. °_ S~`^r .it~~). ~r 7 l c S()[1~. I~t T1.~} (~,~53 _ . i }5]fll. (.., ~ i (, ~.i ~ ,f~u~~f„~.J.~ ~,>~'`_3 -} A~E1~i7,~1_f' f~ '~ ~?1 ELx ;ri{34TC. ~~k1~ f~E'.~.1' a., ~_~ a t~.i ~~EG 1,1/dL~ ? tip ~~[ _ ~ ~::i4)F ~~ ,~i~J dC1C~~C ,_ ~~ i ~~.R i,(~5S 7(3 1.~?tJ ~~1 ~.IC ~:d~~~ ~)t 1~ ;: ~ d,~ia) i( -t;31 C~ iiab~~ rttSt".~ I t~, v. pR L i -f i49R ~1`$i~ d)C 6' :4 - ~ 9 a yr~/~ 2 j a 1~ V! y 4Y~I L~d ~.JaJ I.I~G.I~(~~IEP~ ri 1St ~P..C ~~ Yti'3~A~ ~~C1~II t~}tSCIC~. if ¢ t~I ~~YY E~~~ ~ _ . ~. . ( ~+~ ~1c7T'Z.yC)i22~~ 1~'9~~i#~~)t/i~,, C',r~<.,4,~~~ ~~, [C3~~ £~~1.~~ ~ ~ r - 1~: f~f,'.r ~>_'b4'~~~ ~)t I t ~ -!~~ ~~ k~v11~~ I r ~ (~ , ,_- 1~ ,! Application for Variance Pursuant to Chapter 17.8,1} 10. 1. Approval ofthe variance will be advantageous to tl~ie beautification ofthe neighborhood and the city insofar as it will; -Allow for the completion of the residence in accordance to its original architectural design - Result in the removal of present unsightly temporary barricades to two upstairs exterior doorways, which are highly visible from Grant Rd. - Improve the attractiveness of a primary entrance to the neighborhood, 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The variance pertains to the second story deck that would be visible but not accessible to the neighborhood. The deck would be accessible only from the interior secand scary of the residence. The area below the deck is completely enclosed by a six-foot fence that meets city building Cade pertaining to a swimming pool barrier. 3. The variance will in no way cause utilization of the property far a purpose or intent other than that specified under the zoning district. ~. Special circumstances uniquely affect the property in question. Specifically, the portion of the property adjacent to Grant Rd. is heavily impacted by city setbacks and line of sight easements. Use of this portion of the property is severely limited by these restrictions. When installing an in-ground swimming pool the applicant was required to observe atwenty-fact special setback parallel to Grant Rd. This requirement resulted in the placement of the swimming pawl 1 ~ feet from the existing residence. The residence was originally designed with and framed for a secand story deck extending 1(} feet towards the pool. A portion of the deck will be as claw as ~ feet, 3 inches from the edge of the pawl. A variance of the regulation requiring a 10-foot clearance from the deck to the pool is requested. The applicant is willing to make altematians to the original deck design in order to assure the safety of the deck. The alterations would include increasing railing height and design of the secand story railing, installation of alarms to all doors leading to the second level deck, and redesign ofthe load bearing characteristics ofthe deck. 5. The applicant has made signif cant efforts to work within very restrictive easements placed on his property. Significant time and money has been invested in complying with easements and set backs relative to the placement of the residence, and the location of fencing and landscaping and swimming pawl. The appearance and value of the property in question has been significantly negatively affected already by these restrictians. ~~ _~. ~ " ~~:~~~~.= ,~ PLC N,~V.~.N~ L~~'P.~R~'lc~.~'N~' ,~,C7T]1 l~LlrClp~]rG~, ~1~~~~ ~R~CxflC~ I~l~nnirrg I}ircctor~ It~r~ Gerscler Cornrr~ur~ri~.v Ptarrner ttatt ~arrritare; }Manning 'I'~c~nician G~ty df Cext~rai P€~int notice of Public Vleetxng ~~~~~T ~#~:~ Date of Notice: June 26, 2UO1 P~~nn~~ Departmear,~ Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATO THE C)F MEET~G July 17, 2001 7:170 p.m, {Approximate) Central Point City IJaII 155 South Second Street Central Point, Glregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Variance that could allow a second story deck to be constructed within a required building/swimming pool setback at '152 Jean Louise Circle in an R-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district. The subject parcel is identified in the records ofthe Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 14C8, Tax Lot 1200. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the Variance application to determine if aIl of the requirements ofthe Central Point Municipal Code and Uniform Building Code can be met. Ifthe Commission determines that the application meets the standards, a variance from the minimum ten foot setbacks between pools and structures could be issued . CRITERIA FflR DECISION The requirements for Variances are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Paint Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions on the project approval. Swimming pool setbacks are described in Chapter 15. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 17, 2041, :.. r_a .; ~-> r- ATTACHMENT E RECOMMENDED nLANN~NG DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval ofthe Variance shall expire in one year on July l 7, X002 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 60 days of Planning Coznznission approval. if the construction is completed on schedule, the variance approval will remain valid indefinitely. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . :~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF I2EI'flltT 1 TEARING DA`l~E: duly 17, 2(}~ 1 Tfl: Central Point Planning Comzxxissiozx FROM: I{.ezx Gerschlez•, Cozxxmunity Planzxer SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit of 36 ZW 35, Tax Lot 2200 - Sclxool District 6 Land Lab and Sport Facilities Owned Central Point School District #6 Applicant: 451 Noz-th Second Street Central Point, C}regon 97502 Proper Description/ 362W35, Tax Lot 2200 - 23.00 acres Zoning TJpon Annexation- R-L, Residential Low Density District Summary The applicant is requesting a Conditional Ilse Permit for addztional sport facilities and continued use of the existing Land Lab at their site on Upton Road. Autlzority~ CPMC 1.24.0150 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Conditional Use Permit. Notice ofthe Public 1Tearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.464 (Attachment "A"}. Applicable Law CPMC 17.16.410 et seq. - R-L, Residential Low Density District CPMC 17.76.014 et seq.- Conditional Use Permit Discussion As the Commission is aware, School District 6 received approval by voters last year to make significant improvements to school facilities. Some of the improvements will be made to facilities within the City of Central Point like the addition of a new school at Central Point Elernentazy, the upgrade and construction of new buildings at Crater 1Tigh School and a new maintenance building at ,Tewett Elementary. The applications for the Central Point Elementary and Crater improvements have been scheduled far review by the Planning Commission at the August 7", meeting. In preparation for the upgrade of school facilities, District 6 is requesting a conditional use permit to relocate sport fields from current locations within the city to a 23 acre district owned parcel that is c~ ~°~ <~~ located East of the Upton Road/interstate Five overpass. 'I'lae parcel referred to as "the land lab property" currently louses the land lab and a baseball field. The land is located outside of the city limits and was included into the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary during the early l q$0's so that the area could receive a connection to City water facilities. As time is critical in the upgrade of the other facilities; a decision has been made by the district to annex the property into Central Paint and subsequently process the relocation of facilities as a conditional use permit. The issue of annexation of tlae parcel has been scheduled for City Council action. on July 12'~ anal is expected to pass. A conditional Use permit is required per CPMC 1 x.16.030 {l } for "Public and governmental uses including parks and recreational facilities". The site plan (Attachment "B"}depicts the addition of three soccer fields. The conditional use permit would also affirm the existence of the current land lab facility that is shared by the student agricultural program, known as the Future Farmers 4f America (FFA}. The R-L zoning district will allow a limited number of animals that the school boards for livestock auctions. The School District will pursue a zone change once annexed to place the land lab within the Bear Creek Greenway (BCG} zone which will not restrict the school's animal husbandry program. A notice of hearing has been mailed to property owners located 200 feet on the perimeter of the project with the Planning Department receiving one response from residents at 4~q0 Old Upton Road { Attachment "C"}. Michael and Joanna Vickoren have expressed no objection to additional sport facilities on the parcel but have indicated that there is a need for abicycle/pedestrian pathway along Upton. Road. lVlr. and lvlrs. Vickoren recommend that the speed limit be lowered in the area. No additional signage has been proposed with this project. Hours of operation for the land lab and. sport activities are held during daylight hours and could potentially occur seven days a week .The City has not received any complaints pertinent to the existing activities. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Conditional llse Perraait The Planning Commission in granting a conditional use permit shall find as follows: That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of the code; ^ The lot area is 23 acres and is predominantly surrounded by rural farm activities to the North and East. Interstate Five separates this parcel from the nearest residential corridor. Jackson County Expo Park is located to the South across Bear Creek, ~'~ ~~ ~_ That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accotnt~~odate the tra#`fic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; ^ Access #o the spor# areas will be #aken from a 20 foot wide driveway connecting into Upton Road. 11.4 parking spaces have been shown on the site plan. The lazzd lab will continue #o use the exis#ing road and parking facilities loca#ed towards the Westerly edge of the parcel. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings; wails and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; ^ The relocafion of sport facilities to this site will no# provide any significant adverse effect on surrounding properties. There will be increases in traffic, however these would be comparable #o those occurring now at the fields within the city that are surrounded by residences. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with. local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community. ^ The proposed facilities will need #o meet any applicable local, State and Federal regulations. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare. ^ An approval of this project would be subject #o any recorn~nended conditions of approval assigned by the Planning Commission. Recommezzdation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: l .Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the Conditional Use Permit subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. f?eny the proposed Conditional Use Permit; or 3. Continue the review of the Conditional Use Permit at the discretion of the Commission. s~ ~~' Attachments ~. Notice of Public Hearing ~, Site Plan C. Correspondence D. Planning L}cpaz~tn~ent Recommended Conditions ~~ U~ ~~ Cep ~~a ~. Po.~.~ ~ ~tJl1..t Y 1 Y d.L Y 1.f ~I.. t~L s~l 7.G Y.G J,.~/-~ } .C 'I'orr~ t-Iuz~'z~hre~y, ICI' t'Ian~~irz~; t)irctctor I~e~i Cersciz~er Community ]'lanz~er Matt. Sarr~itore I'tannin~ ']'echaxician Notice of I"ubiic Meeting Tate of Nonce: June 26, 24x1 Meeting Date: Time: PIaGe: July 1 ~, 2001 7:00 p.m. {Approximate Central Point City Halt 155 South Second Street Central Point, C}regon NATURE OF MEETING C~i~* ~ ~ Gex~tr•aI Foin~ F~~:~~:f`~' #~A tt Planning IDe~az-ianen't Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission wits review an application for a Conditional Use Permit that would allow the eontimzed use of the Crater Fligh School Land Lab and Future Farmers of America activities on a parcel of land located east of Interstate Five and south of Upton Raad in an RL- Residential Low-Density zoning district. The application includes a request to re-locate several School District 6 soccer and baseball fields to tl~e parcel. The subject parcel is identified in the records ofthe Jackson County ASSGSSOr as Map 3~ 2W 35, Tax Lot 2240. The Central Point Planning Commission will review ttze Conditional Use Permit application to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code Gan be met. If the Commission deterzxzinGS that the application meets the City's standards, a Conditional Use Permit Gould be issued . CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Conditional Use Permits are set forth in Chapter 17 of tt~ze Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions on the project approval. The proposed plan. is also reviewc;d in accordance to the City`s Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested iz3 commenting on the above-mentiozxed Land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of tlxe meeting scheduled foz• Tuesday, July 17, 2041. xr ~,; 2. Written comments may be sent in advazlce of the znecting to Central Point City I Tall, ~ 55 South Second Street, Central Point, QR. 97502. 3. Issues which may provide tl~e basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to file expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written coznznents about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Nall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at I S cents per page. 5, For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at X541} 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY C3F PRC?CFDUP.E At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff repozfis, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to tl~e criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Conditional I.Tse Permit application as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~, 155 South Second Street #~- Central Point, OR 97502 i~ (541 } 664-3321 +~ Fax: (541 } 664-6384 r1~~~t "" ~ a~3 K~t''K; ~l,batrnw ~x P~Or Bg%~ 4 c4+ ~v,aa~ r nasaar+ a ~.y seE. ~ iEI `, ~ ~ ~~ .~ ~~~ ,~' .. {{ ~~~ f, a ~occe~ ~~ ~. ~ • ~' soccer o ~ ~ 1 C~ ~ o ,~ un~ r~ 1/er~ity ~~~. ~~ c 1 .~ ~~, . ~,., t ,. t ~ t ~`~--~-.-' ~~.-~._ ,* _~ ~~~ ~ ~ ire ~ ~ t ~' 1 .~ j°~ ~~ M Area available ~- ~f~ ~~iGael and Joanna ViGkoren 49'7fl Ulc Upton Rd Central Point, Or 9~'SCl2 Ter VVo~ It May Concern, ~iKY City 0 f C~ ~'~ F~3n~ Plar~nin~ ~7ep~ne~.~ This letter is written..in xegards ~o a Gox-respondenGe we.received GonGerning the Conditional use Fern~it ap~p~ication ~`+~ I~a~-36. ~"Vir 35,. T~..I:,at..22t~Q ~e:l~ave~er.. objections asto.adding_'~~pc~t:aetiv€tiesin.tl~~G.~area.. ~Jur~na~~ GOnGer~a.is .that2~ere needs to.be a bicycle/pedestrian..patl~FV~.~.alon~_I.3ptan.R.d.tcr~aw sa£e..tr~veJ~'c~r youngsters .~~~~ .try .tl~c ~elcLs__.~s~a,MPIyEASI~--make_~re~~.s~eed ~limit~is L(~'~JERE~7 ~~~i€s~ea~-fit is.nc~~ e~rrently ~5.3m~h. ~y ~~sbaz~d--and. ~ ~o~t~ .enjery v~all~in.~~and-.. know first hand vv~at -trat~'~G.:~sW~z~e:er~ :that stretGh_ofroad, We_~ive_right ~.ez~t tcr~.thexc~ad and have seen many accidents-at.-tho.:interseGtions-of Pening~r. ~d and,:41d:.Upton._ Tl~a~~ you for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns. S~nGerely, :.~, ~. .~ =-~- cif ;_.~ ~.} @,,< <a3 ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDIT~flNS flF APPROVAL l . The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 2. This application is subject to annexation of the parcel into the City C}f Central Point. 3. l-le applicants will work cooperatively with the city and county staff to arrive at safe and realistic bike and pedestrian improve~rzents along the school's Upton Road frontage. :, ~~r Miscellaneous Items i' ~,, Homeowners of Rosewood Estates Subdivision Central Pain#, C}R 975{3 June 18, 2t3fl l .Dallas E. Page 9t3~'4%~Iindernar Dr. Ashland, 4R 9'752{1 Re: Rosewood Estates Phase II ~~~~ CITY C}F CI"NTI~A~. PCi~~iT ~~ ~~~~~~ I~~~~~~~ d ~u~~.~i~~ c~ ~u~r..-c v~o~xs o~~T. We, the undersigned, would lil5e to express the following concerns with respect to the purposed Phase ~ ofRosewood Estates. It was disclosed to us £or the fus# time on June 1, Zt341, during a meeting held to discuss the placement of the community pool, that you intend to build 21 houses in Phase II, rather than the '7 houses ys~u previously represented. C3ur concerns as it relates to this drama#ic increase in density for Phase II are as follows. 1'he impact o£34 farr~ilies attempting to use a pool originally designed to questionably accomrnoda#e 2(? far:r-ilies. Additionally, it is apparent that some of the Phase ~l residents will drive to the pool, because of tho distance between their homes in Phase Il and the pool area; thereby, placing undue stress on the very lirni#ed infrastructure provided £or ire Phase ~. Under the proposed change in density the "walking bridge" connection between Phase Z & 11 would provide easy access £or 14 additional unplanned for farrtilies #o our; heretofore, isolated street, creating the paten#ial for an unacceptable level o£ activity and noise. We stand prepared to support your upcoming Planned Unit I7evelapment applz'cation for lt.osewood Estate's Phase Il, however, without the mi#igation of the concerns listed above our support will be retracted. Collectively the undersigned represent 14C}°1o of the curren# property owners of Phase ~ plus all curren# can#ract holders for homes in Rosewood Estates, We await your response #o these issues. Thank you for your often#ion to this mater. Respec#fully, ~~ .> /~^'' ~ k """~..~^F.c. Address Page T ot`2 1-Icrrneawners of Rosewaad Estates Suhdivisian Central faint, t7R ~'75f}2 June 21, Zt3fJ1 Dallas E. Page 9£1£3 Windesnar Dr. Ashland , 4R 9752{} Re: Rasewaad Estates Phase II letter dated June 18, 24Cti Michael Bansmer rrzet with you this afternaan, and you advised that you would be receptive to listening to the cancerns of the Horrtecrwners of Rosewood Estates PYtase I regarding the establishment ofl2.osewoad Estates Phase II, You further suggested that you be given the concerns in writing so yon cauld cansult with the City of Central Paint. Turn Humphrey, Planning Director far the City of Central Point, was cantacted and advised of the concersts ofthe Hanxeowners. Mx Humphrey ores asked ifthe Cit3~ wanid have any Strang abjection to Rosewoad Estates being canf~gured into t~vo separate homeowner assaciatians . Mr. Humphrey stated that he did not believe the City wonid object as fang as each association be respansible for maintaining its own eatsunon grounds and easements set up by the City. This salutian wonid certainly satisfy fihe hameowners in Rosewaad Estates Phase I. There maybe ether solutians to this prabiern, and the harrteowners are willing to entertain other suggestions or ideas that would alleviate the cancerns said out in our Tune 18, setter to you. Respectfully, The H meowners ofRosevvood Estate Phase I `, ,} Cc: Immanuel Investments Lic 18f31 Siskiyou Blvd. Ashland, OR 9752~J City of Central point Planning Department Attn: Tom Humphrey, AICP Piar3ning Direetar 155 ~o~zth 2nd Central Paint, C)R 975{}2 ..ACS ~~-~~ ~ <~ Address ce: Imrrtanuel Investments I.,lc 1841 Siskiyou blvd. Ashtant3, OR 9724 Gity of Central Point Planning I3epart~r~ei~t Attu; Torn Humphrey, AICP Planning IJirector 15S S. 2nd Central PCt3t'tt, QR 97502 Page ~ {3~ z Tx~i~o • C(~l~I~'TT~t.UCTIDT~ A~II3 D~~IG~T I~;~~{{z<'L~".`;. `. .~; , . Aza Qregoaa Coa~aratae~xa #77~F3~. ~?"i Y C;'= i~ .•,~~ ; :,. ; ~.:, ,., E'lJt's~l~t=Yr0`r3rC~iL~f...t'~'.'-i ~' Cit~~af ~en~r~`1 Faint ~ttn,. the" ~' 1~ariii i rig ~ep.artmet~t . ~ haves r~~evci ~ ~e,~ter -gram the r~a,jar3t~r of the hvrne a~uner art . c~ses~c~ad:: ~~~~ ~ha~e ~~ : The awrt'r deem to qtr ~ i s~ tc~ hate ~h~~e I . anti ~'~~~ ~-~ e~a~rated at' t}~e br idle ~n~i create 2 ~e~arae . ~~sac i ~-~ ~ aria . .. ~, am areeabi'e tc~ .th3 r~gae~, last ~~eed...ta ~a~e the ~ ity~ ~e~iew tie ~ ppra~a 1' k~~ ~ he ~? i ann i nc~ " Ccamm i ~ i nn and `the ~ ~ ter Ccaun~ i 1 ~c~ ~~~_ ~ ~ t~i~ wi I1 !a~ ~ccepta#ale to tl~e city." " ~Je ~aauld t~i 11 build tl~e, cc~vred bridge, 1~'~t in the center of the far idc~ tau l d kae ~a l ~ ~d aff tea. ped~tr ian wac~ ~d nat b ab l ~ tca crass . frcam -cane side tca .-~~~. at#~r.: _. . ~at~i aamr~uni~3e~ ~~~1~ ~~311 remain gaged:. " P l ease 'ad+~ ise me as ".ta ,what steps ~ ne~c1 ~ to take to h~ l #a ~~ ' hamea~tn~rs cafe Phase I accamp ~ ;ish ~h~ i r ~~ i rye B~far~~ S ca4,r lc~ ~ s igr~: aff ars th i ~..~ need to have ~~,~r _ a~a~arava ~ ; ~ , €anc~artand heir ~ ~,~'~~ and f~ra~r~ to b~ a b l to h l p therm acl~ i v~ ~h~ _ ' •s~eigh#aprhaad the~~ ~au~ld ~ i ke tca hive. . "hank ~rau far 4your ~tter~tscan gin. th3 matter, • ~ inaer~ l fit;: f~a l l as Wage " ~. ~ . _- } , f - - ~ .. ;:. • ,_ .. 904 ~"~I~TD~~~A.R AS~L~~ND, OR~GQ1tiI 9750 . (5~1) ~•8~-~~7v