HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - August 3, 2010; °~
A
CENTRAL
POIN'T
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
August 3, 2010 - 6:04 p.m.
,~~ ~=;~~,,~\
~
~ ~. ~ ~~:.
. ' ''~~~
a~ ' : ~'
~'kJ'-'~" ~
~
~.
Next Planning Commission
Resolution No. 77 ~
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Ii. ROLL CALL
Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Pi~and, Pat Beck, Mike Oliver, Justin Hurley, Tim
Scl~neusser az~d Keith Wangle
~IY. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES - Review a.nd apprflval of July 6, 2010 Planning Commission Minutes and
June 1, 2010 Pla~uiing Corrunission Study Sessi~n Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
p~s. 1-~~ A. File No. 1001d. Cantinued discussion of proposed ~nendments to the Tourist
and ~~fice-Prafesssional(C-4) zoning district. Applicant: City of Central
Point
VII. DISCUSSION
VIII. AllM~NXSTRATIVE REVIE'WS
TX. MISCELLANEOUS
7~. ADJOORNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Muiutes
July 6, 2014
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Coixunissioners Connie Moczygen~ba, Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Tun
Schmeusser, and Justin Hurley were present. Keith Wan~e and Pat Beck were
absent.
Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Cammunity Developrnent Director;
Don Burt, Flaru.iing Managex; Co~lnie Clune, C~mmunit~ Planner, Dave Jacob,
Gommunity Planner, and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary.
III. CORRESPONDENCE - None
IV. MINUTES
Justin Ilurte~~ made a motion ta approve the minutes of ttte ApriF 6, ZO10
Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Tun Schmeusser seconded the
motion. ROL.L CALL: Piland, yes; Oliver, yes; Hurley, yes; Schtneusser, yes.
Motion passe~.
lr. PUBLIC .,~PPEARANCES - None.
VI. BUSINESS
A. File No. 071Q6. Consideration of a Major Modification applicatian of the
appro~~ed Condltional Use Pernut to include expansion of AYiytime Fitness
to tlie second tloor of the Crossing at Center Point buildin~ at 312 Oak
Street, Central Poin#, Oregan. The subject praperty is lacated in the TOD-
HMR, Transit Qriented Development-High Mix ResidentiaVCommercial
zoning district. The subject property is identified on the Jackson Coui~ty
Assessor's map as 37S 2W 11BB, Tax Lots 500, 600 and 700. Applicant:
Tom Malot Construction Co., Inc.; Agent: Tomimy Malot
There were no eonflicts az ex parte coznrnunications to disclose.
Cammunity Platu~er Connie Clune presented the staff repart, stating that t}~ere were two
elements to be addressed in this modification request. In 2007, The Grossing was
desi~~ated as a multi-use building. The requested modification facuses on the second
Plcrnning Canzmrs.cion 1Llinutes
Julv 6, ?DIO
Pa.ge 2
story suites. Anytime Fitness, tlie fitness center which currently exists on the ground
flaor ofthe building would like to expand anto two of the suites located on the second
floor to be accessed by an internal stain~vell, Additional insulation would be added to
ensure compatibilzty with the residential uses located on the third floar.
In addition, the applicant is requesting more flexibility witlz tl~e patential f'uture uses that
rnight occur on the second flonr. Additional suites could be utilized for future expansion
of the fitness center as pe~~sonal service businesses are allowed in. this zoning district.
Applicant asks that the Cornmunity Developrnent Director be allawed to determ.ine the
appropriateness of future uses.
Ms. Clune advised that there w~~ adequate parking available in the immediate area and
shared parking witk~ the City and library is encouraged. Staff recoitunends approval of
this niodification applicatian with additional language to condition #3 "proposed and
future".
The public portian of the hearing was opened.
Applicant Tommy Malot came for~ard and advised that Anytime Fitness was bringing a
lot of people to Central Point and that the pt-opased expansian would be a positzve step.
Mr, Malot stated that there were no conflicts with parking, All residential units are
currently occupied and with the addition of a drop ceiliaig and more insulation, naise wi11
7~ot be a prablem foz- residents on the third floor.
Dick Carney, awner of the building, caine fonvard and added that they will ensure that
the activities in the fitness center won't interfere with the tenants.
The public hearing was t~ieri clased.
Chuck Piland rnade a motion to approve Resolution 772, a resolution
granting approval af a major modification to an approved conditional use
permit for the expansion flf Anytinc~e Fitness ta the second floar of the
Crossi~g at Center Point located at 312 ~ak Street, Central Point, Oregon
based on the standards, findings, conclusipns and recommendatians stated in
the madi~ed staff report with the language change to condition number 3 to
read: The seconrl stoiy fitr:ess center expansion (prnposed and future) shall be
limiterl tv actilrities that do not. cuus~e exeessive vibratiort ar noise. Justin Hurley
secanded the ~notion. ROLL CALL: Piland, yes; Oliver, yes; Hurley, yes; and
Schmeusser, yes. Motion passed.
$. File No. 10001. Cantinued discussion of proposed amendYnents to the Tourist
and Office-Professional {C-4) zonixig district. Applicant: City of Central
Point
Plaru~ing Manager Dan Burt advised Commisszoners that the proposed amendments to
Plcr:rnrng Cnnami.ssivn Nlintttes
Jr~ly 6, ~'O10
Page 3
the Tourist and Of~ice-Professional (C-4) zonin~ disMct were stxtl in draft form. I4~Ir.
Burt advised that he and Tom Hutnphrey, Cornmunity Development Director, had met
with a~~oup of property owners in the community to abtain input on the suggested
revisions to code. The group found the proposed changes ta be too restrictive and were
going to provide written comment.
Mr. Burt then reviewed the draft of praposed changes to Cl~apter 17.44 CPMC for the
C-4 zoning district. Discussio~ covered the topics of purpose/definition of the district,
design standards, allowed uses, block standards, site regulations, parl~ing regulations,
pedestrian access ways, and building standards. Commissianers agreed that the proposed
draft required additional discussion and continued further ~nsideration to the August 3'~
meeting.
VII. DISCUSSION
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEQUS
Tom Humphrey stated that desi~n work was underway for impro~•ements to tl~e I-S
overpass.
M7'. Hurnphrey advised that the de~elaper was looking for financing for construction of
the railroad crossing in. Twin Creeks and also needed to solve some floodplain issues.
Stephax~ie Hol~ey, Flood Plain Manager, gave Commissioners a~i update on flood plain
map issues and advised tl~at there would be an open house in August witl~ articles in the
City newsletter as wel~.
X. ADJOURNMENT
Chuck Piland made a motion to adjourn the meeting, Tim Schmeusser
seconded the rnotion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:10 p.m.
The foregoing rninutes of the July 6, 2010 Planning Cotnmissian ineeting were approved
by the Plai~liYZg Coriunission at its nleeting on the af , 2010.
Corrunission Chair
City of Central Point
Flartning Commission
Study Session Minutes
Jnne 1, 2010
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:05 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Fat Beck, Tim Schmeusser, Keith Wangle,
and .Tustin Hurley were present.
Also in attendance were: Tom Hurnpl~rey, Community Development Director;
Don Burt, Planning Manager; Connie Clune, Cammunity Planner; Dave Jacab,
Community Planner; and Dida Thomas, Planning Secretary.
III. DISCUSSION
C-4 7.anin~ District Amendments
Planning Manager pon Burt advised the Commissioners that the purpose of the
study session this evening was ta discuss the basic concepts for the proposed
changes ta the C-4 zoning district and that details (specific standards} would be
discussed at a later time. Mr. Burt asked that the facus be on design elements.
Staff would be meeting with an ad hoc cammittee of business people on June 10,
2010 and wished to impart the Planning Commission's wishes at that time in
order to provide direction to the businessmen.
The City's Strategic Plan that was adopted in May of 2007 expressed a desire to
maintain a"small town" environment as one pf the City's core goals, a
community that was walkable with buildings designed ta proj ect rnore human
scale with attractive streetscapes and pedestrian ways. Cannectivity between
destinations by way of pedestrian paths is key to creating and maintaining
wallcability in the community.
Connie 1Vloczygemba expressed concerns for design criteria ta apply also to the
service companents of new construction that abut residential areas.
Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, pointed aut that building
orientation an a property cauld also serve as a buffer to interface with residential
properties.
Planning Comrrlission Minutes
June 1, 2010
Page 2
"Transparency" and the creatian of human scale, Mr. Burt said, is created by
utilizing window space far display areas, awnings over storefronts and vegetatian.
This is what provides a srnall town feel.
Commissioners expressed concerns about design criteria, and making Central
Point look "cute". Mr. Burt stated that any given standard doesn't guaran#ee
qualiTy and that we certai.nly wauldn't want to create a theme, Architecture
should be functional and can be broken up with the use of diffcrent materials.
The cade amendments do not ac~vacate an architectural theme.
Commissioners generally agreed that there should be 4fl% transparency as a
design standard and this would apply to public street frontage where there is
pedestrian movement. Walkability and human scaie were also considered to be
necessary components for cansideration.
Mr. Burt said that future study sessions wauld deal with refining design
requirements in conj unction with uses.
3ustin Hurley expressed concerns about where the funding would come from for
infrastructure improvements. Don Burt said that this wou.ld always be a constant
issue.
Keith Wangle mentioned tree clearance and canopy as a concern. This is where
the sidewalk widths would be important to compensatian. Mr. Burt noted that
streetscape design xs always fraught with compromises which should be m.ade
consciously.
IV. ADJOiJR1~1MENT
Meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m.
The foregoing zninutes of the June 1, 2~10 Planning Commission Study Session were
approved by the Planning Comxnission at its meeting on the of ,
2aio.
Planning Comrnission Chair
PROPOS~D AMEI\ID1VIEl~ITS TtJ'TO~,JFtIST
AI~ID C3FFIC~~PRO~'~ss[o1~A~, CG~~~
ZoH~N~ DisrRicT
STAFF REP~I~T
~
CENTR~-L ~
PO~NT
STA~F REPORT
August 3, 2010
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
~omrnunity Developmeni Director~
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 10010
Cantinued discussion of proposed amendments to the Tourist and Off~c~Professional (C-4) zoning
district; Appiicant: City at Central Point,
STAFF SOURCE:
Dan $urt, Plannu~g Manager
MEETING OBJECTIVE:
objective of tlus meeti~ig is to:
1. Update tlie Planning Cornrtnission on recent discussion with the CAC regardi~z~ t~ie draft C-4
district ordinance;
2. Introduce of an alten~ative draft G~ ordinance addressing changes in use only to rer~ove the
Large Retail Establishinent size limitation {Attac}lment "A");
3, Distribute cotnrnents from the C~ $usiness Cot~~nuttee (Attachme7~t "B"); and
4. Continue discussion atid direction.
BACKGROUND:
Since the July 6" Platuu7ig Conunission staff has met with the C`itizens Advisory Coirunittee (CAC} to
discuss the draft C~ ordinance, and 11as recei~~ed ~~ritten cvmments from the C-4 Busiuess Comrnittee.
Similar to the Planning Comt~ission the CAC requested that discussion on the draft ordinance be
eontinued to allow for additional deliberation. The CAC will tneet again in August to eontinue their
discussion. In Attachmet~t "B" t~ze «~ritten canirnents from the C-4 Business Corrunittee are presented. In
general they find the dra#~ propasal to be too restnctive.
ISSUES:
Based on discussions with all parties there is a number of issues that need to be addresseci. The issues are
presented below with comtnents in italics. The cotnments in italics are based an staff's on-going
preparation af findir~gs to suppoit a C-4 amezidment.
1. C-4 Purpose. There has been some concern that the purpose of the C~ district is too
comprehei~ive and may lead to the assumption that residential uses are required of all
developrnent. There is fitrther concern that the reference to "sinall town" is ta subjective_ These
coneerns tlave been voiced by the C~ Business Conunittee (Attaclunent "B").
Uittil tlze Compye1~e~isrve Plan as rnodiJied to f•~fZectthe Cit~~'s ultinlc~te clev~loprr~ent vhjective,fn-
the G4 di,stt~ict rt is recotnmended tlrat th~ itztefat renaairr. a.s czrrrently stated in CPMC 17,~4.p1 D.
T~ie Cor~prel~es~sive Pla~z is vct,y s~ecific c~bout ihe rnt,ent of tJae C-4 clr'stract, atac~` if chadlenged t)ae
Compt~ehertsive Plun cloes take pf•ecec~ence.
It i,s also appr-opt-rczte to address t]ie iss~tce qf "snzall tt~wn " at. s:ac~l1 ti~rae as tlre Com~~r~elierasiv~
Platz is updaterl (penclifzg RPS`ps•ocess). Ho1a-c~~er~, as tesEd zn tlae draft ~irnenclment the ter~nz
Page 1 of 3 ~,
"snzall to~~~tz " is rzat a~sE~cl as a stanclar~l bu.t us .samply n~;val stcatenzent
2. Use Standards. Use of t1~e NAICS does not appear ta be an issue; however, there is some
concern {lunited) in allowing "Large Retail Establishments" in excess of SO,UUO sq. ft. without
desig~~ controls.
It has been requested by the G-4 Busi~iess Committee that the list af uses be expanded to include
wholesale uses and automotive sales,
Use of ilae N41CS is a tivorthwlaile p~isr,saei.t; lzavv~~~er, bECUisse of tlze zr~zique raatasf•e of ~he G4
r~i~~t~~ict c~rrd its history qf~~errraitted crf~d cvrrditi~nal asses it as r•ecorrinzended thczt fhe zsse ~f the
N~41GS be postpaned us~t~l the Cit~- »2adi~es the Cornprelte~asive Pla.ri, purtic;zclt~~°ly relative to tlae
pur~as~ vf the G4 cii.str•ict. Att.achrnefat `A " t•etains the currend list of pes-rnitted antl cvrzrlit.ivr~al
uses, wr.tlz sonte except.iar~s as not.ecl in Attachment "~ ",
The unrEStricted i~zclusion af "Lrirge Retail Estublis~amer~t.s"c~s ~ pe~~raitted acse cun be.jacstz'fted
calong tlte lines of "CUnamt~nih~ slroppir2g centers ", whicl2 are alt°~ady being allvwed as a
per•mir.ted us~ in. t}ie G4 c-list~•ret,
P:•esently, in t.he ~xisting and praposed ca~e ~vholesr~lc uses are not allowect nor r~re autUn~ahile
anrl/or tr~sck sales,
3. Black Standards. The block standards are too confi~sing and re,strietive, an.d ~vill cause
additional cost to the developer.
2~7ae us~ qf hlvck standu~cl.s i.s a cornmvn pf'ctctrc:e in nta.ny cr't.ies, Ifa lieu ~f ~the hlock standard it ~s
possible to t•elJ} orr. the Sr'te Plan Revielvprnce,s~.s to dascf•etinnaridy addf•e;'S COiZ14f.'CtSVlIy.
Attachrtzent "~1 " elinaar~ates tlze hlock statrdard arrd relie.s on the Site Plcxrr Revi.ew (Section 17.72)
~rocess to c~ddress corzr~eclivil.y.
4. Site Design Standards. Tl~e primary concern is the requirement t~lat no parking be allowed
between the right-of-way and the building, and t}~at such a requirement would have a negative
irnpact on cornrtnercial development.
.4ttacl2»rent ".4 " anclt~des sif.e clesi~na standaf-c~s as presentecl in the existing C-4 ~j~di~~ance, ull.
otlaer-sit.e desi~~ statzc~ards ~ajrll he uddressed ~t t.ime ~fSite Plat2 Revietiv (Section 17.72).
5. Building Design Standards. There is some concei~n regarding the mandatary imposition of
buildii~g design standa~•ds aYZd t~e cost of those standards, particularly the requireme~it for glazing
and the fa~ade articulation standards.
CuYre~~tly, Sectior~ 17.72 of CPtL1C regielates buil~lirt,~ desigrz thraugh the Site Plnn Revielti~
~roce.ss. In attachmc~nt `~4 " the Bi.rildirig Design st.anc~c~rds ha.ve bc~en removecl, r•elyrs2g vn tlae
Site Plarc Rc~ew process to regcclate btsilch:ng desi~n. ~ltaother nl~tion r,s in lieu of cvdifi~in~ tlie
c~esigrt startdarc~s t~ey cun be re ~nek.a.ged as design ~n~idelir~es ta be used for referer~ce yurposes
only during the ,Site Plan. Review proces~.s.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS :
Attachinent "A" - General Cammercial {G4) Draft Alternative Ordinance 03-03-10
Conr~?~ex~ts frozn t~e C-4 Property Owners Comnuttee (Attacl~ment "B")
ACTION:
Discussion a7Zd direction.
~
Page 2 of 3
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct stai~ ta modify tl~e draft per discussion, and to schedule a public hearing on October 5, ?O10 to
consider the final dra~t and fon~ard a recanlmendation to the Citv Council.
~age 3 af 3 ~
I Discussion Draft Minima} Version ATTAC H M E N T "~"
C-4 Zoning DistrlCt COde Modification
~ ~
CHAPTER '17.44
C-4 T~URIST AND ~FFICE-
PROFESSI~NAL DISTR,ICT
I 7.44.000 5ections
Section 17,44.010 Purpose
Sectian i 7.44.020 Permitted Uses
Section 17.44.030 Conditional Uses
Section 17,44.040 ~Iesgf~~Reg~a~+s~Development Standards
. . , ,
Section 17.44.Ob0 General Requirements
Section E 7.44.07d Signs and Lighting o~ Premises
Section 17.44.080 Off-Street Parking
17.44.010 Purpose
The C-4 District is intended to provide far the de~elopment of concentrated tourist commercial and
entertainment facilities to serve both local re$idents and traveling public, and also for the deveiopment
I of compatible ~jeFprofessional office facilities. C-4 development should occur at locations that will
maximize ease of access and visibility fram the Interstate 5 freeway and major arterial streets and to be
cpnvenient to the users of Expo Park, the airport, and downtown,
17.44.020 Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in the C-4 district:
A. Professional ~nd financial, including"
a. Banks and similar financial institutions,
b. Accounting and bookkeeping offices,
c. Reai Estate Offices
d. Insurance Campany Offices,
e. Legal Services,
f. Architectural and Engineering Services,
g. Professional Photo or Art Studios,
h. CounseEing Services,
i. Corporate or Government Off'ices;
B. Tourist and ~ntertainment-Related Facilities, including:
a. Canvenience Market, Meat, Poultry, Fish and Seafood Sales; Fruit and be~erage
Stands,
b. Drugstores,
c. Autamobile Service $tation, Automobile and Recreational Vehicie Parts Sales and
Repairs; and Truck Rentaf s,
d. Matel and Hotel,
e. Walk-In Mavie Theater,
+ Page I of 5
I Discusslon Draft Minimal Version
C~ Zoning District Code Modifirauon
f. Bowl i ng Af ley,
g. Photo and Art Galleries,
h. Phot~ Processing Pickup Station,
i. Travel Agencies,
j. Barber and Beauty Shops,
k. Sit-Down Restaurants or Dinner Houses {including alcohol),
I. Cocktail Lounges and Clubs serving alcoholic beverages,
m. Tavern with Beer Only,
n. Commerciaf Parking Lot,
o. Cammunity Shopping Centers which may include any of the permitted uses in this
section and may also include the following uses:
i. Supermarkets,
ii. DepartmenC Stores,
iii. Sporting Goods,
iv. Books and Stationary,
v. Giks, Notions and Variety,
vi. Florists,
vii. Leather Gdods and Luggage,
viii. Pet Sales and related supplies,
ix. Phatographic Supplies,
x. H ealth Food,
xi. Self-Service Laundry,
xii. Antique Shop,
xiii. Delicatessen,
xiv. Pastry and Con#ectionery,
xv. General Apparel,
xvi. Shoes and Boots,
~cvii. Specialty Apparel,
xviii. Jewelry,
xix. Clocks and watches, Sales and Service,
xx. Bakery, retail only,
xxi. Bicycle Shop,
xxii. Audio, Video, Electranic Sales and service,
xxiii. Printing, Lithography and Publishing,
Mobile Food Vendors,
Srate-Regulated Package Liquor Stores,
Other uses not specified in this or- any ather district, if the plannirtg commission
finds them to be similar to the uses listed above and compatible with other
permitted uses and with the incent of the C-4 district as pravided in Section
I 7.60. I 44.
Large Retail Establishments ~ ,
. . , .
17.44.34 Canditional Uses
A. The following uses are perrr~itted in the C-4 district when authorized in accordance with
Chapter 17.76:
a) Campgrounds and recreational vehicle overnight facifities,
b} Drive-In Movie Theater,
~
Page 2 of 5
I Discussion Draft Minimal Version
C-4 Zoning Dimict Code Modification
c) Golf CaurselDriving Range,
d) Ice and Rolfer Skating Rinks,
e) Dance Halls,
~ Billiard/Pool Halls,
g} Miniature Golf Courses,
h) Amusement Center (Pinball, Games, etc.),
i} Nonindustrial BusinessNocational Schools,
j} Physical Fitness/Conditioning Center; Martial Arts Schools,
k} Car-wash,
I} Taxicab Dispatch Office,
m} AmbulancelEmergency Services,
n) Day Care Center,
o) Drive-In Fast Food Outlets,
p) Other Specialty Food Outfets, ,
q} Television and Radio Broadcastirlg Studio,
~~r) Accessary buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as
incidental sto~~ge facilities, may be permitted as conditional uses when not included
within the primary building or structure,
s,~permitted uses that are referred to the planning commission by city sta{f because
they were faund to exhibit potentially ad~erse ~r hazardous characteristics nQt
normally found in uses of a similar type and size.
B. Uses other than those listed above may be permitCed in a C-4 district when included as
a component of a commercial, tourist, ar o{fice-professional planned unit developrnent
that consists predominantly of uses permitted in the zone and is planned and developed
in accordance with Chapter 17.68. These uses shall include the following
i} I~epartment Stores,
ii) Sporting Goods,
iii) Books and Stationary,
iv) Gifts, Notions and Yariety,
v} Florists,
vi) Leather Gaods and Luggage,
vii} Pet $ales and related supplies,
viii} Photographic Supplies,
ix} Health Food,
x) Self-Service Laundry,
xi} Antique Shop,
xii) Delicatessen,
xiii} Pastry and Confectionery,
xiv} General Apparel,
xv) Shoes and Boots,
xvi) Specialty Apparel,
xvii} Jewelry,
~cviii) Clocks and watches, Sales and Service,
xix) Bakery, retail only,
xx) Bicycle Shap,
~oci)Audio, Video, Electronic Sales and service,
~aii} Printing, Lithography and Publishing,
~
Page 3 of 5
I Discussian Draft Minimal Version
C-4 Zoning District Code Modifi~avon
Se~tion 17.44.030 Developmertt Standards. The following standards address the basic site design
requirements fdr all development within the C-4.
. • - ' I 1 R - - • • ~ . • ~ ~
Standard
Minimum Lot Area 5,000 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Width 54 ft.
Minimum Lot Depth 10Q ft.
BuildinglStructure Height (feet)
rExcept when authorized far telecommunication 60 ft.
antenna support structures, or other antenna
sVuctures or signs.
Lot Coverage (% af site area) None, provided setback, parking, and loading requirements
are met
Minimum Landscaped Area (% of site
area} ~~o~o
Minimum Building/Structure Setbacks
{Section 17.44.0)
Frant Yard 1 Q ft.
Side Yard 5 ft. pius'/~ faot fo~ each foot by which the buiiding height
exceeds 20 ft.
Rear Yard
~ ~ ~
Whert abutting residentially
zoned/planned lands 20 ft.
Build-To Lines {feet} See Section 17.44.0
FenceslWalls
Front Yard 4 ft,
Enterior Side Yard 6 ft.
Rear Yard 6 ~~
Street Side 4 ft.
'Height may be exceeded with approval of a
Conditional Use Permit per Section 17.76
i
Page 4 of 5
I discussion Draft Minimal Version .
C-4 Zoning Disv-ict Code Modification
Section 17.44.060 Gener~l Requirements
A. Uses that are normally permitted in the C-4 district but that are referred ta the planning
cammission for further review, per Section 17.44.03d(A)(19}, will be processed according to
application procedures for conditional use permits. No use shall be permitted and no pracess,
equipment or materials shall be used which are found by the planning commission to be har-mful
to persons iiving or working in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinders, dirt,
refuse, water-carried waste, noise, ~ibration, ilfumination or glare, or are found to involve any
hazar•d of fire or explosion.
B. All businesses, services and pracesses s~all be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed
scructure, with the exception of off-street parking and loading areas, outdaor eating areas,
service stauons, outdoor recreational facilities, recreational vehicle overnight facifities, and other
Compatible activities, as approved by the pianning commission.
C. Qpen storage of materials related to a permitted use shall be conditionally permitted only within
an area surrounded or screened by a salid wall or fence having a height of six feet; provided,
that no materials or equipment shail be stored to a height greater than that of the wall.
D. Front yard areas shall be planted with lawn, trees, shrubs, flowers or other suitable landscaping
materials and shail be continuously maintained in good condition and in an attractive manner. In
cases where the buildings are set back ta provide off-street parking in the front yard area, a
landscape strip having a minimum width af ten feet shall be established and maintained along Che
front lot line.
Se~tion 17.44.07d 5ignage Standards
A. No illuminated sign or lighting standards used for the illumination of premises shall be so
designed and installed that their direct rays are toward or parallel to a public street or
highway or directed toward any property that lies within a residential (R} district.
B. No red, green ar ~mber lights or illuminated signs may be placed in such a location or
position that they could be canfused with, or may interfere with , any offieial traffic-control
device, traffic signal or directional guide signs.
C. Signs in the C-4 district shail be permitted and designed according to provisions of Chapter
I 5-24 and with Section f 7.60. I I 0.
Section ! 7.44.080 Off-Street Parlcing
Off-street parking and loading spaces shall be provide,d as required in Chapter 17.64.
~
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT' " ~
Dear Mr. Huxn.phrey and Mr. Burt,
I am sending this letter an behalf of a gra~p afproperty owners on the
east side of Central Point. As such, we are stakeholders in the City's ePforts
at creating a new C-4 zone. We have reviewed the draft C-4 zone.
Although it provides a good starting point from which to work, we believe
that some aspects of it would effectively prevent any development from
taking place on the east side of the freeway. The resulting stagnation is nat
good for the economy, develapers, cantractors, future customers, and thase
who may obtairi employment when/if development takes place on the east
side.
At the outset, we believe it is impartant to recognize that the east side
of Central Point has a different character than the downtown core. It is
separated by Tntexstate 5, and has a much more suburban feel than the west
side of the freeway. VVithout commercial development on the east side, east
side residents are mare likely ta travel to Medfo~d for shopping, rather than
to the west side of Ce~tral Point~
SpeGifically, our observations and requested revi~ioz~s ta the praposed
ordinance are as follaws:
1, Removai of references to "srna11 town" atrnosphere. Although this
terminolagy is pleasing on its surface, we are concerned about the highly
subjective nature of such a term. ~'ar example, staff, planning commission,
or cauncil n~ght see fit to deny a proj ect, simply because it is tao large to be
considered "small tovcm" in nature. A"sma11 town" effect conld be
e~cpressed thro~gh objective provisions in the ardinance, rather than a vague
reference to "small town: '~f you asked ten ~~ople what constitutes a"sma?1
town" atmosphere, you would get ten different responses.
1Viore importantly, we believe the "snnall tawn" references cauld not
sustain a legal challenge. Oregon law requires "standards that are clear
enough for an applicant to lc~ow what he must show during the application
process." C?RS 227.I73(1}; State ex rel West 1L~ain Townhomes, LLC v. City
af Medford, 233 ~}r App 41 (2009); Lee v. City of ~ortland, 57 Or App 79$
(19$2). Sirnply stating that a development must adhere to a"srnall town"
scheme is too vague to be enforceable tander the ORS, State ex rei West
.Main Townhomes, LLC, and Lee.
~
2. Removal of references to "mixe~-use" in the purpose statement,
T~ere is no reason that the C~ zone could not permit commercial and
residential mixes, but the refe~rence nv ght Xead to an implication tha# a
development rnust be mixed-use. Such a requirement might render
development unfeasible in the east side of Central Point, along Biddie Road.
Further, it may be in~compatible to mix residential and commercial uses in
that area, given the presence of large tnzcks frequenting the Pilot stop.
3. Wholesale sales and commercial and private vehicle sales uses should
be permitted in the C-4 zone, because they are of a similar nature and impact
as Iarger scale retail. For example, a wholesale use such as Costco would
have a similar, or greater impact, but would benefit from lesser star~dards in
the zoning near the intersection af Biddle and Table Rock.
4, Removal of the restriction that a parking lot may not be located
between the building and the public street. The requirement, as drafted,
results in higher architechual a.nd aesthedc design costs, as what would
normally be the back of a buildang now becomes the "frant" or main
entrance. Additionally, there is a practical detriment in that any large retail
establishment will need a back area for loading and unloading goods.
Rerouting parking to the back would create a conflict between customers
and deli~ery trucks and other essentiallogi,stical functions of a retail store.
5. Lot and block skandards are toa restrictive. The latest draft permits
blocks no largez than 600' x 340,' with a maximum peri~meter of 1600.' It
should be noted tt~at if a development utilized the maximum 600' x 300,' the
perimeter would be 1$00,' exceeding the 1644' limit. This might be a~
enor, because the prcvious draft of the ordinance pro~ided a limit of 1800.'
In any event, the lot and block s~andards are a maj~r impedament to
development. Thejr are vague and difficult to understand for potential
developers, which will lead to difficulty in understanding and im~plementing
foz staff and planning comirzissioners ar city council. This eould lead to the
enfarceability problem oudined in paragraph 1. At best, they are
discouraging to develapment, which we believe would render Central Point
at a eompetitive disadvantage ta neighboring cities. A review of other cities'
~rdinances leads to the conclusian that the lot and block standards are very
uncommon.
5. The building dcsign standards in 17.44.035 are toa restrictive and will
result in unnecessary cost The variety of permitted azchitectural features is
~ ~'
limited, anc~ the amount of glazing zs excessive, both in terms of cost, and to
attractiveness to retail develapment. Axchitectural advrnment standards
should be ]imited only to those facades with public entrances when the
farade is 100' long or more. 4ther facades that are only visible from service
ar~as and screened from abutting properties and customer parl~ing should be
exexr~pt from the building design standards in 17.44.035.
7. The large commercially zoned property on the east side of Central
Point an Biddle Road has been vacant for over ten years, since annexatian.
That period of time includes the most substantial real estate boom this area
has ever seen. The reason for the tack of activiry there is that the zoning
standards have worked to deter development. VVith some code revisions, the
properiy could be developed, with positive economic ramifications and
increased tax base for Central Poink. A Iarge scale retail establishment will
spur smaller reta~il and mixed-use development in the vicinity.
Thank you for your considerarian,
i ~~r,J ~ ,`(~~'
i ~
~~