HomeMy WebLinkAboutJan. 3, 2017 PC PacketENTML
CPOIN 1
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
January 3, 2017 - 6:00 p.m.
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE
III. ROLL CALL
Planning Commission members, Mike Oliver (chair), Tom Van Voorhees, Elizabeth
Powell, Craig Nelson Sr., Kay Harrison
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
V. MINUTES
Review and approval of December 6, 2016 Minutes.
VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VII. BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Resolution No. 840 Recommending Approval of an Ordinance
to amend Chapter 17.05 — Applications and Development Review Procedures to
clarify procedures for appeal of Type II and Type III decisions. (File No. 16025)
Applicant: City of Central Point
VIII. DISCUSSION
A. Consideration of authorizing Staff to proceed with various zoning code
corrections.
B. 2016 Buildable Lands Inventory
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
X. MISCELLANEOUS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
H. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Chuck Piland, Craig Nelson, Tom Van Voorhees, Rob Hernandez,
Elizabeth Powell, Mike Oliver and Kay Harrison were present. Also in attendance were:
Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Don Burt, Planning Manager,
Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner, Molly Bradley, Community Planner, and Karin
Skelton, Planning Secretary.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE
None
IV. MINUTES
Rob Hernandez noted that page 2 of the minutes indicated he abstained regarding the
motion to approve the Mobilite application when in fact he had made the motion. Craig Nelson
made a motion to approve the minutes as amended, Tom Van Voorhees seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, abstained; Rob Hernandez, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig
Nelson, yes' Kay Harrison, yes; Elizabeth Powell, yes. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
None
VI. BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Resolution No. 836 Recommending Approval of a Type IV
Legislative Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Update the Land Use Element and to
Modify the Central Point Comprehensive Plan Map from Tourist and Office Professional to
Thoroughfare Commercial on 4.87 acres at 4901 Biddle Road. The site is identified on the
Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 01C, Tax Lot 802. (File No.16022). Applicant:
Rogue Valley Microdevices/Tail Light Properties, LLC Agent: Jay Harland, CSA Planning
Ltd.
Tom Humphrey explained that a Comprehensive Plan (Map) Amendment and Zone Change
were initiated for the above referenced property to facilitate the establishment of a Corporate
Headquarters and Light Fabrication Facility. The combined uses are a better match for the
Commercial Thoroughfare designation than they are for Tourist and Office Professional. In
the course of City staff's review it also became apparent that while the City has promoted
Thoroughfare Commercial uses east of the freeway, it has failed to clarify this in the Land
Use Element. Consequently, this amendment includes an update to the Commercial Land Use
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 2
section of the Comprehensive Plan. This action will document actions taken in the past to
allow a wider range of employment uses and to facilitate greater job creation in Central Point.
The Land Use Element will be revised in a more comprehensive manner in the future during
the Department's next two year budget cycle.
Consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Amendment Criteria, the City Council
Approved a Resolution of Intent (Resolution No. 1477) in October to initiate this land use
amendment. The applicant's agent has submitted a set of Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Maps and Findings of Fact along with relevant approval criteria for the City's consideration.
The Commission may rely upon the applicant's findings and conclusions with regard to the
map amendment. Alternatively, staff is proposing a change to language used in the Land Use
Element to affirm and clarify past City Council actions relative to commercial land use
designations and their locations.
In the Economic Element of the Plan, Computer and electronic product manufacturing are
identified as a trending Oregon industry. The Thoroughfare Commercial land use designation
will accommodate the siting of Rogue Valley Microdevices on the Pine Street corridor. Mr.
Humphrey stated that there were four issues relevant to this application:
1. Comprehensive Plan Compliance. Approval of the proposed amendment must be
found consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. If the Land
Use language is revised and the Comprehensive Plan designation is changed to
Thoroughfare Commercial on the property in question, then the two would
immediately be consistent and compliant.
2. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning. Two tax lots to the east
of the applicant's property are designated Thoroughfare Commercial and zoned C-5.
The property to the south is designated General Industrial. The properties to the west
and north are designated Tourist and Office Professional.
3. Zoning Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments, CPMC Chapter 17.10. This
municipal code section provides standards and procedures for major and minor
amendments to the Central Point city zoning map. In this case, the zone change
(map) proposal was initiated by the applicant for one tax lot and the action is
considered a `minor' amendment and a Type III process. The amendment should be
based on the following criteria; 1) its consistency with the City's Comprehensive
Plan, 2) findings demonstrating that adequate public services and transportation
networks will serve the property and 3) compliance with the State's Transportation
Planning Rule.
4. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Compliance, OAR 660-012-0060. Criteria
for TPR compliance is addressed in both the Applicant's and the City findings
demonstrating adequate public services and transportation networks.
THE PUBLIC PORTION OF THE HEARING WAS OPENED.
Jay Harland of CSA Planning stated that he was the agent for the applicant. He explained
that this property would allow the applicant to construct a facility with appreciably more
room than their current facility. He stated that the expansion from their current location
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 3
would suit their needs for quite some time and would allow for continued growth of the
company. He gave an overview of the applicant's findings, including the traffic impact
analysis. He added that the uses are compatible with the veterinary clinic and surrounding
area, and he was requesting the Planning Commission to approve the application,
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The commissioners wondered if in the future there might be retail businesses or restaurants in
the area and if the uses would be compatible. Mr. Humphrey said they would be compatible.
Additionally he suggested that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council direct
staff to amend the Land Use Element during Fiscal Year 2017-2019 to include updates to
goals and policies for Commercial Land Uses.
Mike Oliver Made a motion to approve Resolution No. 836 forwarding a favorable
recommendation to the City Council to approve the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and
land use redesignation of approximately 5 acres south of Biddle Road between Hamrick and
Table Rock roads from tourist and office Professional to Thoroughfare Commercial. Kay
Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes; Rob Hernandez, yes; Tom
Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes: Elizabeth Powell, yes. Motion
passed.
Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to recommend the City Council direct staff to amend the
Land Use Element during Fiscal Year 2017-2019 to include updates to goals and policies for
commercial Land Uses. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. All Commissioners said "aye".
Motion passed.
B. Consideration of a Zone (map) Change application from Tourist and Office
Professional (C-4) to Thoroughfare Commercial (C-5) for a 4.87 acre parcel located at 4901
Biddle Road. The Project Site is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S
2W 01C, Tax Lot 802. Applicant: Rogue Valley Microdevices/Tail Light Properties, LLC.
Agent: Jay Harland, CSA Planning.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the applicant has requested a minor zone map amendment from C-
4 to C-5 with the intent of developing a new tax lot for a Corporate Headquarters and a Light
Fabrication Facility. The proposed zone change allows more permitted land uses and fewer
conditional uses. However, the nature of the expanded list of permitted uses will not have an
appreciable difference on traffic generation or impact and may even improve it
There are 4 issues/Notes relative to this application as follows:
1. Zoning Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments, CPMC Chapter 17.10. This
municipal code section provides standards and procedures for major and minor
amendments to the Central Point zoning map. In this case the application was
submitted with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and initiated jointly by the
current and anticipated property owners once it is partitioned. The action is
considered a `minor' amendment and is being processed using Type III procedures.
The amendment should be based on the following criteria; 1) its consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, 2) findings demonstrating that adequate public services
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 4
and transportation networks will serve the property and 3) compliance with the
State's Transportation Planning Rule.
Comprehensive Plan Compliance. Approval of the proposed zone change must be
found consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map. The
subject property has a current Comprehensive Plan designation of Tourist and Office
Professional but is proposed for amendment to Thoroughfare Commercial concurrent
with this zone change. If the Comp Plan Amendment is approved, the zone change to
C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial will be consistent and compliant.
3. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning. The subject property is
contiguous to lands zoned C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial to the east, and is
compatible with M-2, General Industrial to the south and C-4, Tourist and Office
Professional to the west.
4. Transportation Planning Rule (TPR) Compliance, OAR 660-012-0060. Criteria
for TPR compliance is addressed in the traffic fmdings (Attachment B)
demonstrating adequate public services and transportation networks.
Mr. Humphrey reviewed the differences between the C-5 Thoroughfare -Commercial zoning
and the C-4 Tourist and Office Professional zoning. The commissioners noted that the
Resolution referenced the 4901 Biddle Road address of the Veterinary Clinic currently under
construction and suggested that it would be more appropriate to reference the map and tax lot
for the subject parcel.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Jay Harland stated that he agreed with the use of the map and tax lot numbers for
identification of the parcel. There were no questions.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Mr. Humphrey recommended approval with the condition that approval of the zone change
be contingent upon approval of the Comprehensive Plan (map) amendment.
Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution No. 837 forwarding a favorable
recommendation to the City council to approve the rezoning the parcel referred to as
37S2W01 C Tax Lot 802 from Tourist and Office Professional (C-4) to Thoroughfare
Commercial (C-5). Rob Hernandez seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes;
Rob Hernandez, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes:
Elizabeth Powell, yes. Motion passed.
C. Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit to allow Rogue Valley
Microdevices to operate a light manufacturing facility which will serve as their
corporate headquarters building. Rogue Valley Microdevices proposes to operate in the
Thoroughfare Commercial (C-5) zoning district. The project site is located at 4901
Biddle Rd., and is defined on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 01C, Tax
Lot 902
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 5
Molly Bradley informed the Planning Commission that Rogue Valley Microdevices is a
microelectronics manufacturing facility. The proposed building will serve as a light fabrication
facility that custom designs and produces microelectronics. The manufacturing process involves
the use of chemicals and hazardous materials.
The Property is currently planned and zoned for Tourist and Office Professional (C-4) uses.
Light fabrication is not a permitted use in the C-4 district. The Property is in the process of both a
land use and zone change to Thoroughfare Commercial (C-5). Light fabrication is a permitted
use in the C-5 zone per CPMC 17.43.020(F), and subject only to Site Plan & Architectural
Review. However, because of the use of hazardous materials the Community Development
Director has the authority per CPMC 17.46.030 to require the proposed use to be processed as a
conditional use. The Conditional Use designation is necessary due to the chemical processes
associated with the fabrication of electronic wafer boards. The conditional use permit is also
required to address reduction in the maximum allowable parking, per CPMC 17.76.040(E)(3).
Ms. Bradley said that the proposed Rogue Valley Microdevices development is a 43,000 square
foot manufacturing building, including a production area and two levels of office space. The
proposed offices are positioned in the front of the building near Biddle Road, while the light
fabrication operations are located in the rear. The main parking lot is located in the front of the
building near Biddle Road, while a second parking lot is located in the rear, to also be used as a
loading area and for truck circulation.
Access to the site will be from the private retail street that intersects with Biddle Road through a
right -in/ right -out configuration and from another private access road to the south of the project
site. The facility will receive multiple ground deliveries daily as well as 1-2 semi -truck deliveries
per week. The building will be occupied by a maximum of 27 employees at one time. There will
be limited customer interface at this facility, except for regular bi-monthly meetings.
The Property abuts C-4 property on the west, M-1 property on the south, C-5 property on the east
and C-4 lands to the north . She said that there are three issues to address relative to this
application:
1) Hazardous Materials: Rogue Valley Microdevices handles hazardous materials during their
fabrication process. Because the use of hazardous materials could be construed to have adverse
or dangerous characteristics, a potential safety concern may be posed to surrounding properties,
including the Super 8 Motel located on property immediately adjacent to the west. In the
Applicant's findings, it is noted that at their current facility in Medford, Microdevices conducts
weekly self -inspections to ensure compliance with applicable local, state and federal health and
safety requirements. Inspections are also regularly conducted by the Medford Fire Department,
Medford's Regional Water Reclamation plant, and the DEQ. Since commencing operations in
Medford, Microdevices has operated without violation of any local or state hazardous materials
regulations or health and safety requirements. The Applicant indicates that they will continue
with its current inspection process to assure the continued compliance with local, state and federal
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 6
health and safety requirements. The only change will be compliance inspection from Fire District
No. 3 instead of the Medford Fire Department.
In accordance with procedure, this application was noticed to surrounding property owners within
100 feet of the project site to allow them an opportunity to comment. To date, no comments or
concerns have been received. Additionally, interviews with affected agencies regarding
hazardous material use have found no incidents or violations. Ms. Bradley said that Staff finds
that the safety protocol required by local, state, and federal law regarding the use of hazardous
materials, as well as the past compliance record of the applicant, are sufficient evidence to meet
safety requirements that protect the facility and surrounding properties.
2) Parking Adjustment: Per Table 17.64.02B of the CPMC, the required amount of parking for
a manufacturing facility is determined based on either the number of employees per shift or the
square footage of gross floor area, whichever is greater. In this case, 86 parking spaces are
required. This project proposes 46 parking spaces to serve the facility. The Applicant is
requesting a reduction to the off-street parking standards as part of the Conditional Use Permit
approval, asserting that strict application of the code would require significantly more parking
spaces than are expected to be needed for the use. She said that per CPMC 17.76.040(E)(3),
adjustments to parking requirements require approval of a conditional use permit in accordance
with any unique characteristics of the proposed use. The Applicant proposes that 46 spaces will
be sufficient for the use, maintaining that the building will occupy a maximum of 35 people at
any given time, including employees and visitors. The Applicant's proposal falls within the
range generated by the ITE manual and the Central Point Municipal Code, and is therefore
considered acceptable.
3) Off -Street Loading Berths: The Applicant has indicated that the facility receives deliveries
by van multiple times per day at varying intervals, while semi -trailer truck deliveries occur once
or twice per week. Per CPMC 17.64.01 Off -Street Loading Requirements, a total of two loading
berths are required based on the square footage of the facility. The Applicant proposes two
central loading doors on the west side of the facility, as well as one berth on the south end, which
is fenced off from the parking lot. In addition, a fourth loading door is located on the east side of
the facility, to be accessed from the private retail street. This easterly door is intended for
occasional equipment deliveries. Access to these four loading berths is a potential concern for
traffic circulation. She said that daily van deliveries will be accommodated through the one-way
loading drive on the facility's west side, so as to avoid obstructing surrounding roads or access
drives. Semi -trailer truck deliveries will be accommodated at the south loading berth, either by
backing into the loading drive or maneuvering within the south parking lot. The loading door
located on the east side of the building has the potential to obstruct vehicle and pedestrian traffic
on the private retail street when deliveries are made. As conditioned, the eastern loading berth
shall be used only during restricted hours.
The Commissioners discussed the monitoring of safety requirements shifting to Fire District 3
and agreed that that would be a satisfactory change. They discussed the parking reduction and
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 7
clarified the parking requirements for a building this size. Additionally the Commissioners
discussed access to the proposed facility. In response to their inquiry, Stephanie Holtey explained
the purpose of a retail street.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Jay Harland informed the Planning Commission that Fire District 3 had a history of experience
with industrial inspections. He explained that the parking would be sufficient because the
building was intended to house quite a lot of equipment rather than to expand for more
employees. He also stated that the purpose of the third loading door was to get the large
equipment into the building and requested that the Planning Commission revise the restriction
on the use of the loading door to weekdays only, thus allowing the applicant to bring in the
equipment on the weekend days while it was light.
Ms. Bradley recommended the Commissioners approve the Conditional Use Permit Application
with the following conditions of approval.
1. The approval of this conditional Use Permit is contingent upon the approval of the zone
change of 37S2WOIC, Tax Lot 802 from C-4 to C-5.
2. The eastern loading berth located on the retail street shall not be used for deliveries
during the hours of 7:30 a.m. — 5:30 p.m. Monday — Friday.
3. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the following conditions must be met:
a. Conditions as listed in the Rogue Valley Sewer Services memo, dated November 4,
2016.
b. Conditions as listed in the letter from the Airport, dated November 4, 2016.
c. Conditions as set forth in the Fire District #3 memo, dated November 10, 2016.
d. Submittal of a Hazardous Materials List and floor plan indicating the type of
material, class, quantity, and storage as conditioned in the Building Department
memo dated November 4, 2016.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Ms. Bradley said that potentially, restricting the loading berth access could impact future
development. The Commissioners were unclear as to whether this meant they would be
presented with a future application for modification based on how they conditioned the approval
of this application. Stephanie Holtey stated that they would only have to hear it if it was a major
modification. Minor modifications could be made administratively.
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 8
Rob Hernandez made a motion to approve Resolution no. 838 Consideration of a Conditional
Use Permit to allow Rogue Valley Microdevices to operate a light manufacturing facility
which will serve as their corporate headquarters building, subject to the conditions
recommended by staff. Rogue Valley Microdevices proposes to operate in the Thoroughfare
Commercial (C-5) zoning district located on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W
01 C, Tax Lot 802. Tom Van Voorhees seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver,
yes; Rob Hernandez, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes:
Elizabeth Powell, yes. Motion passed.
7:45 p.m. Chair Chuck Piland announced a 5 minute break.
7:50 p.m. meeting resumed
D. Consideration of a Site Plan and Architectural Review application for the
construction of a 43,000 square foot corporate headquarters and light fabrication
facility for Rogue Valley Microdevices. Rogue Valley Microdevices proposes to
operate in the Thoroughfare Commercial (C-5) zoning district. The project site is
located at 4901 Biddle Rd., and is defined on the Jackson County Assessor's map as
37S 2W 01C, Tax Lot 802.
Stephanie Holtey briefly reviewed for the Planning Commission the description of the
project, the necessity for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Conditional
Use Permit. She informed the Commissioners that the Property has frontage on Biddle
Road and adjoins a private retail street to the east and a private access drive to the
south. The primary fagade and main pedestrian entry front Biddle Road and the main
parking area, which has 35 spaces. Access at this location is from the private retail
street, which has limited access to Biddle Road which is right-in/right-out. Secondary
parking of 11 spaces is behind the building with two points of access from the private
retail street and access drive. The southerly private drive provides full access (right-
in/left-in, right-out/left out) onto Hamrick Road. A one-way loading drive parallels
the west building elevation and provides access to two loading bays.
Architecturally the structure has a modern design that provides variation in building
materials to distinguish the manufacturing and office uses. Elements such as recessed
windows, sun shades/canopies and inset panels mitigate building mass on the North, East
and West elevations. The color palette is off-white, dark blue/black and matte stainless
steel.
She stated that there are three issues relative to the application.
Legal Lot Status. At the time of this review, the 2.24 acre project site has been
tentatively approved but not legally created. Since the Southern Oregon Specialty
Veterinary Center occupies the parent parcel (Tentative Lot 1), construction activities
may not commence until the final plat is recorded. The Applicant's findings state that the
tentative plan improvements are underway with completion of the final plat anticipated
within the next couple of months. She said that staff recommends the lot legality issue be
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 9
resolved with a condition of approval requiring final plat completion prior to building
permit issuance.
2. Parking Adjustment. Per Table 17.64.02B of the CPMC, the required amount of
parking for a manufacturing facility is determined based on either the number of
employees per shift or the square footage of gross floor area, whichever is greater.
In this case, 86 parking spaces are required. The Applicant's parking plan
proposes 46 spaces. To meet the off-street parking interior landscape
requirements, the applicant may lose one (1) space in the secondary parking Iot
south of the building resulting in 45 spaces. Provision of 4546 spaces does not
meet the minimum/maximum parking requirement. She said that as part of the
Conditional Use Permit, the Applicant requested a parking reduction on the basis
that strict application of the code requirement would significantly increase the
number of parking spaces needed for the proposed use. The Applicant's Findings
state that a maximum of 35 people will occupy the building at any time, including
employees and visitors. Based on a Parking Demand Analysis using the Institute
of Traffic Engineers Manual, the manufacturing use will generate 34 — 51 parking
spaces. The parking plan with 45-46 spaces falls within the range generated by
the Manual and the Central Point Municipal Code and is therefore considered
acceptable.
3. Off -Street Parking Landscape Requirements. Proposed off-street parking lot
landscaping improvements are not consistent with the requirements for interior
islands and tree planting per CPMC 17.75.039(G)(2):
a. Interior Islands. CPMC 17.75.039(G)(2) requires landscape islands a
minimum of 8 -ft wide be placed within parking rows that contain ten or
more spaces. Four interior islands that are 4 -ft wide are dispersed
throughout the front parking lot. The proposed islands do not meet the
minimum width for interior landscape islands. The south parking lot
behind the building has an 11 space parking row and does not meet the
interior landscaping requirement for islands. She said that based on staffs
review, the interior landscape requirements can be met with minor
modifications to the parking lot configuration. The landscape islands
within the north parking lot can be consolidated into two 8 -foot islands
without losing any parking spaces. However the addition of an interior
island in the south parking lot appears to result in the loss of one space.
As demonstrated in the Applicant's parking demand analysis, a total of 45
parking spaces would remain within the acceptable range of parking
generated by the use. She added that Staff recommends a revised Site
Plan be submitted at the time of building permit application demonstrating
compliance with the interior landscape requirements of CPMC
7.75.039(G)(2).
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 10
b. Trees. CPMC 17.75.039(G)(2)(a-c) provides the tree planting
requirements for off-street parking lot interior landscape areas. The
number of trees required is a function of the parking lot visibility from the
public realm. Highly visible parking lots require more trees than those
that are located away from public rights-of-way or behind buildings.
The north parking lot is between the primary building facade and Biddle
Road and requires 1 tree for every four spaces. There are 35 spaces
requiring eight trees; however, only two are shown on the landscape plan.
The south parking lot is behind the building and requires one tree for
every eight spaces resulting in one tree for the 10-11 space parking row.
No trees are shown on the landscape plan at this location. She said that
Staff recommends that a revised Landscape Plan be submitted at the time
of building permit application demonstrating compliance with the interior
landscape requirements for trees per CPMC 17.75.039(G)(2)(a) and (c).
Ms. Holtey recommended approval of the application with conditions:
1. Site Plan and Architectural Review approval is subject to designation of the
project site as Commercial Thoroughfare and C-5; and approval of a Conditional
Use Permit. Failure to obtain any of the required land use approvals shall result in
the denial of this site plan and architectural review application.
2. At the time of building permit application, the applicant shall submit a revised site
plan and landscape plan demonstrating compliance with the off-street parking lot
landscape requirements in CPMC 17.75.039(G)(2). Modifications that alter the
site layout may be subject to CPMC 17.09, Modifications to Approved Plans.
3. Prior to building permit issuance, the final plat for the Tail Light Properties Minor
Partition shall be approved by the City of Central Point and recorded by the
Jackson County Assessor.
4. The Applicant shall comply with agency conditions as listed in the:
a. Rogue Valley Sewer Services letter dated November 16, 2016.
b. Jackson County Roads letter dated November 16, 2016,
and contingent on the approvals of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, the
Zone Change Amendment, and Conditional Use Permit.
8:08 Commissioner Elizabeth Powell left the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Jay Harland requested that the Planning Commission allow construction to begin on the
project prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy rather than prior to issuance of
Building Permits. He stated that his concern was that the final plat might not be recorded
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page 11
before construction needed to begin. He also indicated that in Attachment "F", the
comment from Jackson county Roads, numbers 8, 9 and 10 were not applicable to this
application. The Commissioners reviewed the attachment and agreed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Stephanie Holtey stated that she recommended approval with the understanding that any future
modifications to the plan would be subject to code standards.
Craig Nelson made a motion to approve Resolution No. 839, Consideration of a Site Plan
and Architectural Review application for the construction of a 43,000 square foot
corporate headquarters and light fabrication facility for Rogue Valley Microdevices
subject to staff conditions as modified by the Planning Commission. Rogue Valley
Microdevices proposes to operate in the Thoroughfare Commercial (C-5) zoning
district. The project site is located at 4901 Biddle Rd., and is defined on the Jackson
County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 01C, Tax Lot 802. Kay Harrison seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes; Rob Hernandez, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes;
Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed.
VII. DISCUSSION
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
None
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn. Kay Harrison seconded. All said "aye". Meeting was
adjourned at 8:20 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the December 6, 2016 Planning Commission meeting were approved by
the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of, _. 2017.
Planning Commission Chair
WA9 7.
' _ — 11 ' — •r J l _ +— , - 1' •.' ■ I I . �' I I•t: l l �r •.±I — ■'i .' ►I r
■ {_ 'r'I I— .. ili_ f .� I — 111 •I n��•.. l�l II —I�.II ,•'ll I r
7
Consideration of Resolution No. 840 Recommending Approval of an Ordinance
to amend Chapter 17.05 — Applications and Development Review Procedures to
clarify procedures for appeal of Type 11 and Type Ili decisions ��
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 16025
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
January 3, 2017
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey,AICP,
Community Development Director
Consideration of Resolution No. 840 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve amendments
to Chapter 17.05 Applications and Development Permit Review Procedures, adding 17.05.550 Appeal Procedure. Type II
and Type III Decisions; Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
In the wake of a recent appeal of a City decision to LUBA, the City Attorney noticed some unclear processes in Chapter
17.05 and recommended the City make changes to the appeal procedure for Type II and Type III land use decisions. Type
II decisions are those made by the Community Development Director and appealable to the Planning Commission. Type
III decisions are those made by the Commission and appealable to the City Council. Among other things the revisions
offered in Attachment A; 1) provide clarity for public noticing; 2) define processing deadlines and 3) delineate the basis
for which appeals may be made.
ISSUES:
Confusion that may be caused by a lack of specificity or clarity results in public frustration, unnecessary processing delays
and costly legal fees. The proposed amendments are intended to reduce if not eliminate the issues cited above.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A — Resolution No. 840 with Proposed Amendments"
ACTION:
Consider resolution forwarding a recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments as proposed.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 840.
Page 1 of 1
Chapter 17.05
APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES
Sections:
l 7.05.100 Purpose and applicability of review procedures
17.05.200 "r pe I procedure,
17.05.300 Typc I1 procedure.
17.05.400 Tape 111 procedurc.
17.05.500 TyVe 1V procedure.
17.05.550 Appeal Procedure.
17.05.600 General procedural provisions.
17.05.700 Expedited land divisions_
17.05.800 Reserved.
17.05.900 Traffic impact analysis.
17.05.100 Purpose and applicability of review procedures.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to establish standard decision-making procedures that
will enable the city, the applicant, and the public to review development permit applications and
participate in the local decision-making process in a timely and effective way consistent with the
citizen's involvement element of the comprehensive plan. Table 17.05.1 provides a key to
identify the review procedures, applicable regulations, and the approving authority for
development permit applications.
B. Applicability of Review Procedures. All development permit applications identified in Table
17.05.1 shall be decided by using the appropriate procedures contained in this chapter. The
procedural "type" assigned to each development permit application governs the decision-making
process for that permit. There are four "types" of procedures: Type I, 11, 111, and IV, which are
described as follows:
1. Type I. Type I procedures apply to administrative decisions made by the community
development director or designee without public notice and without a public hearing. Type I
procedures are used only when there are clear and objective approval standards and criteria, the
application of which does not require the use of discretion.
A Type I decision is the city's final decision. There are no appeals to a Type I procedural
decision.
2. Type II. Type II procedures apply to administrative decisions that involve clear and objective
approval standards and criteria the application of which requires the use of limited discretion.
Type II decisions are made by the community development director or designee with public
notice, and an opportunity for a public hearing if appealed. The appeal of a Type II decision is
treated as a Type III procedure, except that these p e of the hea-- iii -s 1:mited a provided �.� v x the x.-. ■ a
„bseefien rnvzi of this soetie T and i app)eal is to the
Planning Commission, which is the final decision of the city.
3. Type III. Type III procedures are quasi-judicial decisions that involve the application of
existing policies. Type III decisions generally use discretionary approval criteria, and do not
have a significant effect beyond the immediate area of the application. Type III decisions are
based on special studies or other information which will serve as the factual basis to support the
decision. Type III decisions, when made by the planning commission, may be appealed to the
city council.
4. Type IV Procedure. Type IV decisions are legislative decisions that establish by law general
policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as the adoption or revision of the
comprehensive plan, and revisions to the zoning and the land division ordinance that have
widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area, i.e., quantitative changes
producing large volumes of traffic, or a qualitative change in the character of the land use itself,
such as conversion of residential to industrial use; or a spatial change that affects large areas or
many different ownerships. Unless otherwise noted, all Type IV decisions are considered
initially by the citizens advisory committee and the planning commission, with final decisions
made by the city council.
Table 17.05.1 provides a key to identify the review procedure for each land development permit.
3
TABLE 17.05.1
LAND DEVELOPMENT
PROCEDURAL
APPLICABLE
APPROVING
120 -
PERMIT*
TYPE
REGULATIONS
AUTHORITY
DAY
RULE
Annexation
Quasi -Judicial
Type III
Chapter 1.20
No
City Council
Legislative
Type IV
Chapter 1.20
City Council
No
Comprehensive Plan & UGB
Amendments
Major
Type IV
Chapter 17.96
City Council
No
Minor
Type III
Chapter 17.96
City Council
No
Conditional Use Permit
Type III
Chapter 17.76
Planning
Yes
Commission
Conversion Plan
Type II
Chapter 16.32
Director
Yes
Extensions
Type I Procedures
Type I
Section
Director
Yes
17.05.200(G)
Type II Procedures
Type II
Section
Director
Yes
17.05.300(H)
Home Occupation
Type I
Section 17.60.190
Director
Yes
Land Division
Tentative Plan, Partition
Type II
Chapter 16.36
Director
Yes
Tentative Plan, Subdivision
Type III
Chapter 16.10
Planning
Yes
Commission
Final Plat
Type I
Chapter 16.12
Director
No
Property Line
Type I
Chapter 16.10
Director
Yes
Adjustment/Consolidation
Modification of Approval
Major
Type III
Section 17.09.300
Planning
Yes
Commission
Minor
Type II
Section 17.09.400
Director
Yes
Nonconforming Use Designation
Type III
Section 17.56.040
Planning
No
Commission
TABLE 17.05.1
LAND DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURAL APPLICABLE APPROVING 120 -
PERMIT* TYPE REGULATIONS AUTHORITY DAY
RULE
Planned Unit Development
Type III
Chapter 17.68
Planning
Yes
Commission
Right -of -Way Vacation
Type 11I1V
Chapter 12.28
City Council
No
Site Plan and Architectural
Review
Minor
Type I
Chapter 17.72
Director
Yes
Major
'Type II
Chapter 17.72
Director
Yes
TOD District/Corridor Master
Type III
Chapter 17.66
Planning
Yes
Plan
Commission
Tree Removal
Type II
Chapter 12.36
Director
Yes
Variance
Class A
Type II
Section 17.13.300
Director
Yes
Class B
Type III
Section 17.13.400
Planning
Yes
Commission
Class C
Type III
Section 17.13.500
Planning
Yes
Commission
Zoning Map and Zoning and
Land Division Code Text
Amendments
Minor
Type III
Chapter 17._10
City Council
Yes
Major
Type IV
Chapter 1.7:_ 1.0
City Council
No
* An applicant may be required to obtain approvals from other agencies, such as the Oregon
Department of Transportation, or Rogue Valley Sewer. The city may notify other agencies of
applications that may affect their facilities or services.
(Ord. 1989 § 1(part), 2014; Ord. 1941 § § 1, 2, 3, 2010; Ord. 1874 § 1(part), 2006).
17.05.300 Type II procedure.
A. Pre -Application Conference. A pre -application conference is optional for a Type II permit
application. The requirements and procedures for a pre -application conference are described in
Section 17.05.600(C).
B. Application Requirements.
1. Application Forms. Type II applications shall be made on forms provided by the planning
department for the land development permit requested.
2. Submittal Requirements. A Type II permit application shall include:
a. The information requested on the application form;
b. Findings addressing the applicable regulations per Table 17.05.1. Note: At the discretion of
the community development director, additional information may be required during the
application process;
c. One set of pre -addressed mailing labels for all real property owners of record who will receive
a notice of the application as required in subsection C of this section. The records of the Jackson
County assessor's office are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall
produce the notice list using the most current Jackson County assessor's real property assessment
records to produce the notice list. The city shall mail the notice of application; and
d. The required fee.
3. Notice of Acceptance. Within fourteen days of submittal, the community development director
or designee shall notify the applicant in writing of:
a. The procedural type used for the application. In some circumstances, a Type II application
may be referred to a Type III procedure. When such a referral is made, it shall be made at the
time of notice of acceptance, after which the application shall be processed as a Type III
application. When a Type II application is referred to a Type III application, no new application
is required; and
b. Acceptance of the application; or
c. Non acceptance of the application with an itemization of the deficiencies and deadline for
correction of the deficiencies.
C. Notice of Application for Type II Decision.
d- k3etCare-r�i&f��i}g a -T H fle i)E? tip �t3s}rriiiii}��y_��e..�ln.,..e.,r �kreeWF OF Si„email
nAtiee te.
IMMM
d: 1. No less than 20 days before the community development director makes a decision, written
notice of the application shall be mailed to all of the following:
a. Applicant;
b. Owners of record of the subject property;
c. Owners of record within a minimum of one hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the site;
d. All city -recognized neighborhood groups or associations whose boundaries include the site;
e. Any person who submits a written request to receive a notice; and
f. Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement
entered into with the city. The city may notify other affected agencies. The city shall notify the
county or ODOT, and the rail authority, when there is a proposed development abutting or within
one hundred flet of an affected transportation facility and allow the agency to review, comment
on, and suggest conditions of approval for the application.
2. The notice of a pending Type 11 administfative deeis application shall include:
a. comments b mon- &qnade-on
the POHRi ,
a. The street address or other easily understood reference to the site;
b. list , he relevant approval criteria by name and number of code sections;
c. gtaW l'he place, date and time the comments are due, and the person to whom the comments
should be addressed;
fl -1i �LiE�e��iE''1.�ai=icr ccr'zi ci= e „ „bef •,E• a ea •Tule Pefse }Fel"g-OF t', ng the ariFHtnistfatiY
deeisien
d. A description of the proposal and identifyication the specific permits or approvals requested;
e. A statement of the -issues that may provide the basis for an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals must be raised in writing and with sufficient specificity to enable the decision maker to
respond to the issue;
f. The name and phone number of a city contact person;
g. A brief summary of the local decision making process for the decision being made;
grate t!I , "Ir arrypeNon fai-is to addwss there e van tapproval e..'�eri a wit. eugh-deil, the! -
may not be able to appeal to the land use board of appeals or- eirettit eouft on that issue d tla4
evidence;
h. State A statement that all evidence relied upon by the community development director or
designee to make this decision is in the public record, available for public review. Copies of this
evidence may be obtained at a reasonable cost from the city,
i. ate A statement that, after the comment period closes, the community development director
or designee shall issue a Type II administrative decision, and that the decision shall be mailed to
the applicant and to anyone else who submitted written comments or who is otherwise legally
entitled to notice; and
j. Contain the following notice:
Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller: The City of Central Point Land Development
Code requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser.
3. The notice shall allow a 14 -day period for the submission of written comments, starting from
the date of mailing. All comments must be received by the city by 5:00p.m. on that 14th -day.
D. Administrative Decision Requirements. The community development director or designee
shall make a Type II written decision addressing all of the relevant approval criteria and
standards. Based upon the criteria and standards, and the facts contained within the record, the
community development director or designee shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny the
requested permit or action.
E. Notice of Decision.
1. Within five days after the community development director or designee signs the decision, a
notice of decision shall be sent by mail to:
a. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the site that is the subject of
the application;
b. Any person who submitted a written request to receive notice, or provides comments during
the application review period;
c. Any city -recognized neighborhood group or association whose boundaries include the site;
and
d. Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement
entered into with the city, and other agencies that were notified or provided comments during the
application review period..-; and
e. Property owners located within 100 feet of the exterior boundaries of the subject property.
2. The community development director or designee shall cause an affidavit of mailing the notice
to be prepared and made a part of the file. The affidavit shall show the date the notice was mailed
and shall demonstrate that the notice was mailed to the parties above and was mailed within the
time required by law.
3. The Type II notice of decision shall contain:
a. A description of the applicant's proposal and the city's decision on the proposal (i.e., may be a
summary);
b. The address or other geographic description of the property proposed for development,
including a map of the property in relation to the surrounding area, where applicable;
c. A statement of where a copy of the city's decision, and the complete planning file may be
reviewed and the name and contact number of the city staff to contact about reviewing the file;
d. The date the decision shall become final, unless appealed;
e. A statement that only the applicant and persons who submitted
comments prior to the comment deadline may appeal the decision; and
f. A statement briefly explaining how to file an appeal, the deadline for filing an appeal, and
where to obtain further information concerning the appeal process.
F. Effective Date. A Type II decision is final for purposes of appeal when the notice of decision
per subsection E of this section is mailed by the city and becomes effective ten days from the
date of mailing of the notice of decision. If an appeal is filed within the ten-day period, the
decision does not become effective until the appeal is decided. Appeal process is governed by
Section 17.05.550.
v
1 A.,y pelt..,...... who . en-t-RaW to written ne iee of the Type it decisie.,•
fe�Ft!T�Y.TIhTI �i!!!!!��l�fl1S ilf!R�
'. 7�.Q"
IN
ii. A statement denionsifflting the peFsen filing ffie nefiee ef appeal has standing
te appeal;
iii. A statement explaining the speeifie iq5ues raised on appeak;
iY. if the OPPMR11t 66 not the Opp! v
'sques were raised dufing the eaffiffient period; and
-,,. The applieetble filing fee,
3—.8eepe of Appeal. The appeal of a Type 11 deeision by a peNea with standing shall be R_
hearing _bef ..e the planni.-.e_....m.t.on. I='-- e -all Lail be limited to the application
10
..teria4s 4deaee an other- .�.�..-.,,«.�.0ntat;.-... ,,..7 � ei fi , issuesraised;., the Type 1
alluCVClua J, VYlClV11VV Cllr.{ Vlll , � e
4. Appeal Preeedures. Type W and desisien pmeess shall be
.r i i
used for- all SSTT�I--�l__-- ,
5. HiW-Deeimen.The�,. -- the -' of
11 deeision is the final deeisieft of the eit�
14G. Extensions. The community development director shall, upon written request by the
applicant and payment of the required fee, grant a written one-year extension of the original or
last extension approval period, provided:
1. The land development permit authorizes extensions;
2. No changes are made to the original application as approved by the city;
3. There have been no changes in the zoning, land division code, or applicable comprehensive
plan provisions on which the approval was based. In the case where the plan conflicts with a
code or comprehensive plan change, the extension shall be either:
a. Denied; or
b. At the discretion of the community development director, the request for extension may be re-
reviewed as a modification per Section 17.09.300;
4. The extension request is filed on or before the expiration of the original or latest extension
approval per subsection F of this section;
5. If the time limit expired and no extension request has been filed, the application shall be void.
(Ord. 1989 § 1(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 § 1(part), 2006).
17.05.400 Type III procedure.
A. Pre -Application Conference. A pre -application conference is required for all Type III
applications. The requirements and procedures for a pre -application conference are described in
Section 17.05.500(C).
B. Application Requirements.
1. Application Forms. Type III applications shall be made on forms provided by the community
development director or designee for the land development permit requested.
M
2. Submittal Requirements. When a Type III application is required, it shall include:
a. A completed application form with required attachments;
b. One copy of a narrative statement (findings and conclusions) that explains how the application
satisfies each and all of the relevant criteria and standards in sufficient detail for review and
decision-making. Note: Additional information may be required under the specific applicable
regulations for each approval as referenced in Table 17.05.1;
c. The required fee; and
d. One set of pre -addressed mailing labels for all real property owners of record who will receive
a notice of the application as required in subsection C of this section. The records of the Jackson
County assessor's office are the official records for determining ownership. The applicant shall
produce the notice list using the most current Jackson County assessor's real property assessment
records to produce the notice list. The city shall mail the notice of application. The failure of a
property owner to receive notice as provided in subsection C of this section shall not invalidate
such proceedings provided the city can demonstrate by affidavit that such notice was given.
C. Notification Requirements.
1. Mailed Notice. The city shall mail the notice of the Type III hearing. Notice of a Type III
hearing shall be given by the community development director or designee in the following
manner:
a. At least twenty days before the hearing date, or if two or more hearings are allowed, ten days
before the first hearing, notice shall be mailed to:
i. The applicant and all owners or contract purchasers of record of the property on the most
recent property tax assessment roll that is the subject of the application;
ii. All property owners of record on the most recent property tax assessment roll within one
hundred feet of the site, including tenants of a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park;
iii. Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement
entered into with the city. The city may notify other affected agencies. The city shall notify the
county road authority, or ODOT, and rail authority for applications that are abutting or affecting
their transportation facility and allow the agency to review, comment on, and suggest conditions
of approval for the application;
iv. Owners of airports in the vicinity shall be notified of a proposed zone change in accordance
with ORS 227.175;
12
v. Any neighborhood or community organization recognized by the city council and whose
boundaries include the property proposed for development;
vi. Any person who submits a written request to receive notice;
vii. ,
Md
At the applicant's discretion, notice may also be provided to the Department of Land
Conservation and Development.
b. The community development director or designee shall prepare an affidavit of notice and the
affidavit shall be made a part of the file. The affidavit shall state the date that the notice was
mailed to the persons who were sent notice.
2. Content of Notice. Notice of a Type III hearing shall be mailed per subsection C of this section
and shall contain the following information:
a. An explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed land use or uses that could be
authorized for the property;
b. The applicable criteria and standards from the zoning and subdivision code and
comprehensive plan that apply to the application;
c. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property;
d. The date, time, and location of the public hearing;
e. A statement that the failure to raise an issue in person, or in writing at the hearing, or failure to
provide statements or evidence sufficient to afford the decision -maker an opportunity to respond
to the issue prior to the close of the final hearing means that an appeal based on that issue cannot
be raised at the State Land Use Board of Appeals;
f. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number and email address
where additional information on the application may be obtained;
g. A statement that a copy of the application, all documents and evidence submitted by or for the
applicant, and the applicable criteria and standards can be reviewed at the city of Central Point
City Hall at no cost and that copies shall be provided at a reasonable cost;
13
h. A statement that a copy of the city's staff report and recommendation to the hearings body
shall be available for review at no cost at least seven days before the hearing, and that a copy
shall be provided on request at a reasonable cost;
i. A general explanation of the requirements to submit testimony, and the procedure for
conducting public hearings; and
j. The following notice:
Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller: The City of Central Point Land Development
Code requires that if you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser.
D. Conduct of the Public Hearing.
1. At the commencement of the hearing, the hearings body shall state to those in attendance:
a. The applicable approval criteria and standards that apply to the application or appeal;
b. A statement that testimony and evidence shall be directed at the approval criteria described in
the staff report, or other criteria in the comprehensive plan or land use regulations that the person
testifying believes to apply to the decision;
c. A statement that failure to raise an issue with sufficient detail to give the hearings body and
the parties an opportunity to respond to the issue means that no appeal may be made to the State
Land Use Board of Appeals on that issue;
d. Before the conclusion of the first evidentiary hearing, any participant may ask the hearings
body for an opportunity to present additional relevant evidence or testimony that is within the
scope of the hearing. The hearings body shall grant the request by scheduling a date to finish the
hearing (a "continuance") per subsection (D)(2) of this section, or by leaving the record open for
additional written evidence or testimony per subsection (D)(3) of this section.
2. If the hearings body grants a continuance, the hearing shall be continued to a date, time, and
place at least seven days after the date of the first evidentiary hearing. An opportunity shall be
provided at the second hearing for persons to present and respond to new written evidence and
oral testimony. If new written evidence is submitted at the second hearing, any person may
request, before the conclusion of the second hearing, that the record be left open for at least
seven additional days, so that they can submit additional written evidence or testimony in
response to the new written evidence.
3. If the hearings body leaves the record open for additional written evidence or testimony, the
record shall be left open for at least seven days after the hearing. Any participant may ask the
14
city in writing for an opportunity to respond to new evidence submitted during the period that the
record was left open. If such a request is filed, the hearings body shall reopen the record to allow
rebuttal evidence.
a. If the hearings body reopens the record to admit new evidence or testimony, any person may
raise new issues that relate to that new evidence or testimony;
b. An extension of the hearing or record fora lifnited land use granted Type III Application
pursuant to this subsection D is subject to the limitations of ORS 2.27.178 ("one -hundred -twenty -
day rule"), unless the continuance or extension is requested or agreed to by the applicant;
c. If requested by the applicant, the hearings body shall allow the applicant at least seven days
after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written arguments in support of the
application, unless the applicant expressly waives this right. The applicant's final submittal shall
be part of the record but shall not include any new evidence. For limited land use decisions, the
seven-day period sball not be subject to the limitations of ORS 227.178 and 227.179;
d. The record shall contain all testimony and evidence that is submitted to the city and that the
hearings body has not rejected;
e. In making its decision, the hearings body may take official notice of facts not in the hearing
record (e.g., local, state, or federal regulations; previous city decisions; case law; sta€f-reperts).
The review authority must announce its intention to take notice of such facts in its deliberations,
and allow persons who previously participated in the hearing to request the hearing record be
reopened, if necessary, to present evidence concerning the noticed facts;
f. The city shall retain custody of the record until the city issues a final decision and all appeal
deadlines have passed.
4. Participants in a Type 11 quasi-judicial hearing are entitled to an impartial review authority as
free from potential conflicts of interest and prehearing ex parte contacts (see subsection (13)(5) of
this section) as reasonably possible. However, the public has a countervailing right of free access
to public officials. Therefore:
a. At the beginning of the public hearing, hearings body members shall disclose the substance of
any prehearing ex parte contacts (as defined in subsection (D)(5) of this section) concerning the
application or appeal. He or she shall also state whether the contact has impaired their
impartiality or their ability to vote on the matter and shall participate or abstain accordingly.
Hearing participants shall be entitled to question hearing body members as to ex parte contacts
and to object to their participation as provided in subsection (D)(5)(b) of this section;
15
b. A member of the hearings body shall not participate in any proceeding in which they, or any
of the following, has a direct or substantial financial interest: their spouse, brother, sister, child,
parent, father-in-law, mother-in-law, partner, any business in which they are then serving or have
served within the previous two years, or any business with which they are negotiating for or have
an arrangement or understanding concerning prospective partnership or employment. Any actual
or potential interest shall be disclosed at the hearing where the action is being taken;
c. Disqualification of a member of the hearings body due to contacts or conflict may be ordered
by a majority of the members present and voting. The person who is the subject of the motion
may not vote on the motion to disqualify;
d. If all members of the hearings body abstain or are disqualified, the city council shall be the
hearing body. If all members of the city council abstain or are disqualified, a quorum of those
members present who declare their reasons for abstention or disqualification shall be requalified
to make a decision;
e. Any member of the public may raise conflict of interest issues prior to or during the hearing, to
which the member of the hearings body shall reply in accordance with this section.
5. Ex Parte Communications.
a. Members of the hearings body shall not:
L Communicate directly or indirectly with any applicant, appellant, other party to the
proceedings, or representative of a party about any issue involved in a hearing without giving
notice per subsection (C) of this section;
ii. Take official notice of any communication, report, or other materials outside the record
prepared by the proponents or opponents in connection with the particular case, unless all
participants are given the opportunity to respond to the noticed materials.
b. No decision or action of the hearings body shall be invalid due to ex parte contacts or bias
resulting from ex parte contacts, if the person receiving contact:
i. Places in the record the substance of any written or oral ex parte communications concerning
the decision or action; and
ii. Makes a public announcement of the content of the communication and of all participants'
right to dispute the substance of the communication made. This announcement shall be made at
the first hearing following the communication during which action shall be considered or taken
on the subject of the communication.
16
c. A communication between city staff and the hearings body is not considered an ex parte
contact.
6. Presenting and Receiving Evidence.
a. The hearings body may set reasonable time limits for oral presentations and may limit or
exclude cumulative, repetitious, irrelevant or personally derogatory testimony or evidence;
b. No oral testimony shall be accepted after the close of the public hearing. Written testimony
may be received after the close of the public hearing only as provided in subsection (D)(3) of this
section;
c. Members of the hearings body may visit the property and the surrounding area, and may use
information obtained during the site visit to support their decision, if the information relied upon
is disclosed at the beginning of the hearing and an opportunity is provided to dispute the
evidence under subsection (D)(5)(b) of this section.
E. The Decision Process.
1. Basis for Decision. Approval or denial of a Type III application shall be based on standards
and criteria in the development code. The standards and criteria shall relate approval or denial of
a discretionary development permit application to the development regulations and, when
appropriate, to the comprehensive plan for the area in which the development would occur and to
the development regulations and comprehensive plan for the city as a whole;
2. Findings and Conclusions. Approval or denial shall be based upon the criteria and standards
considered relevant to the decision. The written decision shall explain the relevant criteria and
standards, state the facts relied upon in rendering the decision, and justify the decision according
to the criteria, standards, and facts;
3. Form of Decision. The hearings body shall issue a final written Order decision containing the
findings and conclusions stated in subsection (E)(2) of this section, which either approves,
denies, or approves with specific conditions. The hearings body may also issue appropriate
intermediate rulings when more than one permit or decision is required;
4. Decision -Making Time Limits. " final written ord The written decision for any Type III
action (including an appeal from a Type II decision) shall be filed with the community
development director or designee within ten days after the close of the deliberation;
5. Notice of Decision. Written notice of a Type III decision shall be mailed to the applicant and
to all participants of record within ten days after the hearings body decision. Failure of any
17
person to receive mailed notice shall not invalidate the decision; provided, that a good faith
attempt was made to mail the notice.
6. Final Decision and Effective Date. The decision of the hearings body on any Type III
application is final for purposes of appeal on the date it is mailed by the city. The decision is
effective on the day after the local appeal period expires. If an appeal of a Type III decision is
filed, the decision becomes effective on the day after the local appeal is decided by the eity
eeeeeil hearings body. Appeal process is governed by Section 17.05.550. An appeal of a land
use decision to the State Land Use Board of Appeals must be filed within twenty-one days after
the city council's written decision is mailed by the city.
P. to the eity
eouneil as follows!
a. Neke of Appeal. Any pmon with stRnding
appealed,diFeeter
to appeal, as provided
in subseetien
(P)(1) of this seetion, may appeal a Type W deeisien
by filing a netiee
efappeal
aeeer-difig to the fellewing adu icT
b. Time fer- Ring. Anetiee of appeal shall be filed
or designee within tan days efthe date
with the eommunity
the netiee ef do i i
evelepmk}E
. - -wed-,
i. An idenfifieatiee of the deeision being
iii_ A -statement e"laining the speeifie issues being raisedappeaI;
18
rr�s�ae!s!re�.
3.
Seepe of Hipp a1� eaf�T11 ,J..eis-an_ is limited to the issues and a :dence
in the r-eeord before the hearing body.
r.
dJi,� al Procedures. r. rrr n nt: >.
s� e pa,.r� a .; S X11 al e
�Eis_�l ior .l I 'T', i f 1 appe„_l a8 per. ded iii G.., eti o 'gli E of this t.ern-'
deeision is the final deeision of the eity,
C.F Extensions. The community development director shall, upon written request by the
applicant and payment of the required fee, grant a written one-year extension of the original or
last extension approval period, provided:
1. The land development permit authorizes extensions;
2. No changes are made to the original application as approved by the city;
3. There have been no changes in the zoning, land division code, or applicable comprehensive
plan provisions on which the approval was based. In the case where the plan conflicts with a
code or comprehensive plan change, the extension shall be either:
a. Denied; or
b. At the discretion of the community development director, the request for extension may be re-
reviewed as a modification per Section 17.09.410;
4. The extension request is filed on or before the expiration of the original or latest extension
approval per subsection (E)(6) of this section;
5. If the time limit expired and no extension request has been filed, the application shall be void.
(Ord. 1989 § I (part), 2014; Ord. 1874 § 1(part), 2006).
17.05.550 Appeal procedure — Type II and Type III decisions.
A. Appeal. Type II decisions may be appealed to the planning commission. Type III decisions
may be appealed to the City Council. All such appeals are subject to the following:
19
1. Who May Appeal. The following people have legal standing to appeal a Type II and/or Type
III decision:
a. The applicant or owner of the subject property;
b. Any person who participated in the proceeding by submitting timely written and/or oral
comments on the record prior to the decision.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
a. Notice of Appeal. Any person with standing to appeal, as provided in 17.05.550(A)(1), may
appeal a decision by filing a notice of appeal according to the procedures in subections 2(b) and
2(c) below:
b. Time for Filing. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the community development director or
designee within ten (10) days from the date the notice of decision was mailed;
c. Content of Notice of Appeal. The notice of appeal shall contain:
i. An identification of the decision being appealed, including the date of the decision;
ii. A statement demonstrating the person filing the notice of appeal has standing to appeal;
iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal. If the appellant contends
that the findings of fact made by the approving authority are incorrect or incomplete, the notice
shall specify the factual matters omitted or disputed. If the appellant contends that the decision is
contrary to ordinance, statute or other law, such errors shall be specifically identified in the
notice along with the specific grounds relied upon for review;
iv. If the appellant is not the applicant, a statement demonstrating that the appeal issues were
raised in the record; and
v. ne applicable filing fee.
B. Scope of Appeal. Type II and Type III appeals shall be on the record, which means the appeal
is limited to the application materials, evidence, documentation, and specific issues raised in the
initial proceeding. The decision maker shall not re-examine issues of fact and shall limit its
review to determining whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the findings
of the initial decision maker who heard the matter, or to determining whether errors of law were
committed by such decision maker. Review shall in any event be limited to those issues set forth
in the notice of appeal. The appellant is precluded from raising an issue on appeal if he or she
could have raised the issue before the initial decision maker but failed to do so. Only the
20
appellant and other parties who appeared in the initial proceedings may participate in the appeal
hearing. Appellant shall make the initial presentation and shall be allowed rebuttal. Each
participant in the appeal hearing shall present to the planning commission or city council,
respectively, those portions of the record which the participant deems relevant to the appeal. If a
party wishes the planning commission or city council, respectively, to review recorded
testimony, the party shall present a written summary or transcript of such testimony to be
reviewed.
C. Notice of Hearing and Staff Report
1. Upon timely receipt of the notice of appeal and filing fee, the community development
director or his designee shall set the appeal for hearing before the planning commission for Type
II appeals and city council for Type III appeals. The community development director or his
designee shall notify the appellant and all parties who appeared in the initial proceedings of the
time and place of the hearing by first class mail, enclosing a copy of the notice of appeal at least
20 -calendar days before the date of the appeal hearing.
2. Not less than seven (7) calendar days before the date of the appeal hearing, the director or his
designee shall prepare and make available to the public, for review and inspection, a copy of the
staff report and shall provide a copy of the staff report to the planning commission or city
council and to the appellant. The director shall provide a copy of the staff report to all other
parties and members of the public at reasonable cost upon request.
C. Final Decision. The reviewing body shall make a written decision which either affirms,
reverses, or modifies in whole or in part the decision or any conditions of such decision, that is
under review. When the hearings body modifies or renders a decision that reverses a decision of
the approving atit hod ty, said hearings' hod 3, sha11, in its written decision, set forth its findings and
state its reasons for taking the action encompassed by such decision. The decision of the
planning commission regarding an appeal of a Type II decision is the final decision of the city.
The decision of the city council regarding an appeal of a Type III decision is the final decision of
the city.
D. Withdrawal of an Appeal.
1. Before the close of an appeal hearing in front of any appellate decision making authority, any
appellant may withdraw his appeal.
2. Withdrawal of an appeal is subject to the following:
a. The party may withdraw the appeal on its own motion, which may be submitted to the
appellate decision making authority orally or in writing.
21
b. No part of the appeal fee will be refunded.
c. No one may re -file a withdrawn appeal.
d. Where multiple people or parties sign and file a single appeal document, all must consent to
the withdrawal of the appeal.
3. In addition to all the requirements of this section, if all appeals in a matter are withdrawn, the
appellate decision making authority loses jurisdiction over the action. The underlying decision is
automatically re -instated under its original date of final decision.
17.05.500 Type IV procedure.
A. Pre -Application Conference. A pre -application conference is required for all Type IV
applications initiated by a party other than the city of Central Point. The requirements and
procedures for a pre -application conference are described in Section 17.05.600(C).
B. Timing of Requests. Acceptance timing varies for Type IV applications (see Table 17.05.1 for
applicable section reference).
C. Application Requirements.
1. Application Forms. Type IV applications shall be made on forms provided by the community
development director or designee.
2. Submittal Information. The application shall contain:
a. The information requested on the application form;
b. A map and/or plan addressing the appropriate criteria and standards in sufficient detail for
review and decision (as applicable);
c. The required fee; and
d. One copy of a letter or narrative statement (findings and conclusions) that explains how the
application satisfies each and all of the relevant approval criteria and standards applicable to the
specific Type IV application.
D. Notice of Hearing.
1. Required Hearings. A minimum of two hearings, one before the planning commission and one
before the city council, are required for all Type IV applications.
22
2. Notification Requirements. Notice of public hearings shall be given by the community
development director or designee in the following manner:
a. At least ten days, but not more than forty days, before the date of the first hearing, a notice
shall be mailed to:
i. Any affected governmental agency;
ii. Any person who requests notice in writing;
b. At least ten days before the first public hearing date, and fourteen days before the city council
hearing date, public notice shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the city.
c. The community development director or designee shall:
i. For each mailing of notice, file an affidavit of mailing in the record as provided by subsection
(D)(2)(a) of this section; and
ii. For each published notice, file in the record the affidavit of publication in a newspaper that is
required in subsection (D)(2)(b) of this section.
d. The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) shall be notified in
writing of proposed comprehensive plan and development code amendments within the time
period prescribed by DLCD. The notice to DLCD shall include a DLCD certificate of mailing.
3. Content of Notices. The mailed and published notices shall include the following information:
a. The number and title of the file containing the application, and the address and telephone
number of the community development director or designee's office where additional
information about the application can be obtained;
b. The proposed site location, if applicable;
c. A description of the proposal in enough detail for people to determine what change is
proposed, and the place where all relevant materials and information may be obtained or
reviewed;
d. The time(s), place(s), and date(s) of the public hearing(s); a statement that public oral or
written testimony is invited; and a statement that the hearing will be held under this title and
rules of procedure adopted by the council and available at City Hall (see subsection E of this
section).
23
E. Hearing Process and Procedure --Conduct of Public Hearing.
1. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedure adopted by the city council:
a. The presiding officer of the planning commission and of the city council shall have the
authority to:
i. Regulate the course, sequence, and decorum of the hearing;
ii. Direct procedural requirements or similar matters;
iii. Impose reasonable time limits for oral presentations; and
iv. Waive the provisions of this chapter so long as they do not prejudice the substantial rights of
any party.
b. No person shall address the commission or the council without:
i. Receiving recognition from the presiding officer; and
ii. Stating his or her full name and address.
c. Disruptive conduct such as applause, cheering, or display of signs shall be cause for expulsion
of a person or persons from the hearing, termination or continuation of the hearing, or other
appropriate action determined by the presiding officer.
2. Unless otherwise provided in the rules of procedures adopted by the council, the presiding
officer of the commission and of the council shall conduct the hearing as follows:
a. The presiding officer shall begin the hearing with a statement of the nature of the matter before
the body, a general summary of the procedures, a summary of the standards for decision-making,
and whether the decision which will be made is a preliminary decision, such as a
recommendation to the city council, or the final decision of the city;
b. The community development director or designee's report and other applicable staff reports
shall be presented;
c. The public shall be invited to testify;
d. The public hearing may be continued to allow additional testimony or it may be closed; and
24
e. The body's deliberation may include questions to the staff, comments from the staff, and
inquiries directed to any person present.
F. Continuation of the Public Hearing. The planning commission or the city council may
continue any hearing, and no additional notice of hearing shall be required if the matter is
continued to a specified place, date, and time.
G. Decision -Making Criteria Decision Process. The recommendations by the citizens advisory
committee, the planning commission and the decision by the city council shall be based on the
applicable criteria as fog en^^a in Table 17.0-54.
H. Approval Process and Authority.
1. The citizens advisory committee and planning commission shall:
a. The citizens advisory committee: after notice and discussion at a public meeting, vote on and
prepare a recommendation to the city council to approve, approve with modifications, approve
with conditions, deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative; and
b. The planning commission: after notice and a public hearing, vote on and prepare a
recommendation to the city council to approve, approve with modifications, approve with
conditions, deny the proposed change, or adopt an alternative; and
c. Within ten days of adopting a recommendation, the presiding officer shall sign the written
recommendation, and it shall be filed with the community development director or designee.
2. Any member of the citizens advisory committee or planning commission who votes in
opposition to the majority recommendation may file a written statement of opposition with the
community development director or designee before the council public hearing on the proposal.
The community development director or designee shall send a copy to each council member and
place a copy in the record;
3. If the citizens advisory committee or planning commission does not adopt a recommendation
to approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny the proposed change, or
adopt an alternative proposal within sixty days of its first public hearing on the proposed change,
the community development director or designee shall:
a. Prepare a report to the city council on the proposal, including noting the citizens advisory
committee's or planning commission's actions on the matter, if any; and
25
b. Provide notice and put the matter on the city council's agenda for the city council to hold a
public hearing and make a decision. No further action shall be taken by the citizens advisory
committee or planning commission.
4. The city council shall:
a. Consider the recommendation of the citizens advisory committee and planning commission;
however, the city council is not bound by the committee's or the commission's recommendation;
b. Approve, approve with modifications, approve with conditions, deny, or adopt an alternative
to an application for legislative change, or remand the application to the planning commission
for rehearing and reconsideration on all or part of the application; and
c. If the application is approved, the council shall act by ordinance, which shall be signed by the
mayor after the council's adoption of the ordinance.
I. Vote Required for a Legislative Change.
1. A vote by a majority of the qualified voting members of the citizens advisory committee
present is required for a recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, approval
with conditions, denial or adoption of an alternative.
2. A vote by a majority of the qualified voting members of the planning commission present is
required for a recommendation for approval, approval with modifications, approval with
conditions, denial or adoption of an alternative.
3. A vote by a majority of the qualified members of the city council present is required to decide
any motion made on the proposal.
J. Notice of Decision. Notice of a Type IV decision shall be mailed to the applicant, all
participants of record, and the Department of Land Conservation and Development, within five
days after the city council decision is filed with the community development director or
designee.
K. Final Decision and Effective Date. A Type IV decision, if approved, shall take effect and shall
become final as specified in the enacting ordinance, or if not approved, upon the date of mailing
of the notice of decision to the applicant.
L. Record of the Public Hearing.
26
1. A verbatim record of the proceeding shall be made by stenographic, mechanical, or electronic
means. It is not necessary to transcribe an electronic record. The minutes and other evidence
presented as a part of the hearing shall be part of the record;
2. All exhibits received and displayed shall be marked to provide identification and shall be part
of the record;
3. The official record shall include:
a. All materials considered and not rejected by the hearings body;
b. All materials submitted by the community development director or designee to the hearings
body regarding the application;
c. The verbatim record made by the stenographic, mechanical, or electronic means; the minutes
of the hearing; and other documents considered;
d. The final decision;
e. All correspondence; and
f. A copy of the notices that were given as required by this chapter. (Ord. 1989 § I (part), 2014;
Ord. 1874 §1 (part), 2006).
17.05.600 General procedural provisions.
A. One -Hundred -Twenty -Day Rule. In accordance with ORS 227.178, the city shall take final
action on all land use decisions as identified in Table 17.05.1, including resolution of all appeals,
within one hundred twenty days from the date the application is deemed as complete, unless the
applicant requests an extension in writing. The total of all extensions may not exceed two
hundred forty-five days. Any exceptions to this rule shall conform to the provisions of ORS
227.178.
B. Time Computation. In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by this chapter, the
day of the act or event from which the designated period of time begins to run shall not be
included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included, unless it is a Saturday or
legal holiday, including Sunday, in which event the period runs until the end of the next day
which is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday.
C. Pre -Application Conferences.
27
I . Participants. When a pre -application conference is required, the applicant shall meet with the
community development director or his/her designee(s) and such other parties as the community
development director deems appropriate;
2. Information Provided. At such conference, the community development director or designee
shall:
a. Cite the comprehensive plan policies and map designations that appear to be applicable to the
proposal;
b. Cite the ordinance provisions, including substantive and procedural requirements that appear
to be applicable to the proposal;
c. Provide available technical data and assistance that will aid the applicant;
d. Identify other governmental policies and regulations that relate to the application; and
e. Reasonably identify other opportunities or constraints concerning the application.
3. Disclaimer. Failure of the community development director or designee to provide any of the
information required in this subsection C shall not constitute a waiver of any of the standards,
criteria or requirements for the application;
4. Changes in the Law. Due to possible changes in federal, state, regional, and local law, the
applicant is responsible for ensuring that the application complies with all applicable laws.
D. Acceptance and Review of Applications.
1. Initiation of Applications.
a. Applications for approval under this chapter may be initiated by:
i. Order of city council;
ii. Resolution of the planning commission;
iii. The community development director or designee;
iv. A record owner of property (person(s) whose name is on the most recently recorded deed), or
contract purchaser with written permission from the record owner.
28
b. Any person authorized to submit an application for approval maybe represented by an agent
authorized in writing to make the application on their behalf.
2. Consolidation of Proceedings. When an applicant applies for more than one type of land use or
development permit (e.g., Type II and III) for the same one or more parcels of land, the
proceedings may, at the option of the applicant, be consolidated for review and decision.
a. If more than one approval authority would be required to decide on the applications if
submitted separately, then the decision shall be made by the respective approval authority having
jurisdiction over each type procedure.
b. When proceedings are consolidated:
i. The notice shall identify each application to be consolidated;
ii. The decision on a plan map amendment shall precede the decision on a proposed land use
district change and other decisions on a proposed development. Similarly, the decision on a zone
map amendment shall precede the decision on a proposed development and other actions; and
iii. Separate findings shall be made for each consolidated application.
3. Check for Acceptance and Completeness. In reviewing an application for completeness, the
following procedure shall be used:
a. Acceptance. When an application is received by the city, the community development director
or designee shall immediately determine whether the following essential items are present. If the
following items are not present, the application shall not be accepted and shall be immediately
returned to the applicant:
L The required form;
ii. The required fee;
iii. The signature of the applicant on the required form and signed written authorization of the
property owner of record if the applicant is not the owner.
b. Completeness.
i. Review and Notification. After the application is accepted, the community development
director or designee shall review the application for completeness. If the application is
incomplete, the community development director or designee shall notify the applicant in writing
29
of exactly what information is missing within thirty days of receipt of the application and allow
the applicant one hundred eighty days to submit the missing information.
ii. Application Deemed Complete for Review. In accordance with the application submittal
requirements of this chapter, the application shall be deemed complete upon the receipt by the
community development director or designee of all required information. The applicant shall
have the option of withdrawing the application, or refusing to submit further information and
requesting that the application be processed notwithstanding any identified incompleteness. For
the refusal to be valid, the refusal shall be made in writing and received by the community
development director or designee.
iii. If the applicant does not submit all of the missing information or provide written notice that
no further information will be provided (whether some of the additional information has been
provided or not) within one hundred eighty days of the date the initial submittal was accepted per
subsection (D)(3)(a) of this section, the application is void.
iv. Standards and Criteria That Apply to the Application. Approval or denial of the application
shall be based upon the standards and criteria that were applicable at the time it was first
accepted, unless the application is for a change to the comprehensive plan or land use
regulations.
v. Coordinated Review. The city shall also submit the application for review and continent to the
city engineer, road authority, and other applicable county, state, and federal review agencies.
4. Changes or Additions to the Application. Once an application is deemed complete per
subsection (D)(3)(b) of this section:
a. All documents and other evidence relied upon by the applicant shall be submitted to the
community development director or designee at least seven days before the notice of action or
hearing is mailed. Documents or other evidence submitted after that date shall be received by the
community development director or designee, and transmitted to the hearings body, but may be
too late to include with the staff report and evaluation;
b. When documents or other evidence are submitted by the applicant during the review period
but after the notice of action or hearing is mailed, the assigned review person or body shall
determine whether or not the new documents or other evidence submitted by the applicant
significantly change the application;
c. If the assigned reviewer determines that the new documents or other evidence significantly
change the application, the reviewer shall include a written determination to the approving
authority that a significant change in the application has occurred as part of the decision. In the
30
altemate alternative, the reviewer may inform the applicant either in writing, or orally at a public
hearing, that such changes may constitute a significant change, and allow the applicant to
withdraw the new materials submitted, in order to avoid a determination of significant change;
d. If the applicant's new materials are determined to constitute a significant change in an
application that was previously deemed complete, the city shall take one of the following actions,
at the choice of the applicant:
i. Suspend the existing application and allow the applicant to submit a revised application with
the proposed significant changes. Before the existing application can be suspended, the applicant
must consent in writing to waive the one -hundred -twenty -day rule (subsection A of this section)
on the existing application for a minimum of thirty (30) days from the date of the Hffiendffimt
significant change to allow the City to reprocess the revised application. If the applicant does not
consent, the ei#y-applicant may stall -not select this option
ii. Declare the application, based on the significant change, a new application and reprocess as
having been refiled as a new application as of the date the significant change was submitted
aee y; or
iii. Decide the application on the basis of the applicant's materials without the significant change.
e. If a new application is submitted by the applicant, that applicant shall pay the applicable
application fee and shall be subject to a separate check for acceptance and completeness and will
be subject to the standards and criteria in effect at the time the new application is accepted.
E. Community Development Director's Duties. The community development director or
designee shall:
1. Prepare application forms based on the criteria and standards in applicable state law, the city's
comprehensive plan, and implementing ordinance provisions;
2. Accept all development applications that comply with this section;
3. Prepare a staff report that summarizes the application(s) and applicable decision criteria, and
provides findings of conformance and/or nonconformance with the criteria. The staff report may
also provide a recommended decision of approval; denial; or approval with specific conditions
that ensure conformance with the approval criteria;
4. Prepare a notice of the prepesal proposed decision:
31
a. In the case of an application subject to a Type I or II review process, the community
development director or designee shall make the staff report and all case file materials available
at the time that the notice of the decision is issued;
b. In the case of an application subject to a public hearing (Type III or IV process or a Type II
review on appeal), the community development director or designee shall make the staff report
available to the public at least seven days prior to the scheduled hearing date, and make the case
file materials available when notice of the hearing is mailed, as provided by Sections
17.05.300(0) (Type I1), 17.05.400 (0) (Type 111), or 17.05.500(D) (Type IV);
5. Administer the application and hearings process;
6. File notice of the final decision in the city's records and mail a copy of the notice of the final
decision to the applicant, all persons who provided comments or testimony, persons who
requested copies of the notice, and any other persons entitled to notice by law;
7. Maintain and preserve the file for each application for the time period required by law. The
file shall include, as applicable, a list of persons required to be given notice and a copy of the
notice given; the affidavits of notice, the application and all supporting information, the staff
report, the final decision (including the findings, conclusions and conditions, if any), all
correspondence, minutes of any meeting at which the application was considered, and any other
exhibit, information or documentation which was en-th
applisatien made part of the record; and
8. Administer the appeals and review process.
F. Amended Decision Process.
1. The purpose of an amended decision process is to allow the community development director
or designee to correct typographical errors, rectify inadvertent omissions and/or make other
minor changes that do not materially alter the decision.
2. The community development director or designee may issue an amended decision after the
notice of final decision has been issued but before the appeal period has expired. If such a
decision is amended, the decision shall be issued within fourteen business days after the original
decision would have become final, but in no event beyond the one -hundred -twenty -day period
required by state law. A new ten-day appeal period shall begin on the day the amended decision
is issued.
3. Notice of an amended decision shall be given using the same mailing and distribution list as
for the original decision notice.
32
4. Modifications to approved plans or conditions of approval requested by the applicant shall
follow the procedures in Chapter 17^09. All other changes to decisions that are not modifications
under Chapter 17.09 shall follow the appeal process.
G. Resubmittal of Application Following Denial. An application or proposal that has been
denied, or that was denied and on appeal or review has not been reversed by a higher authority,
including the Land Use Board of Appeals, the Land Conservation and Development Commission
or the courts, may not be resubmitted as the same or a substantially similar proposal for the same
land for a period of at least twelve months from the date the final city action is made denying the
same, unless there is substantial change in the facts or a change in city policy that would change
the outcome, as determined by the community development director or designee.
H. City Council Review. The city council shall have the authority to call up any Type II or Type
III application for review. The decision to call up an application may occur at any time after the
application is filed until the decision is otherwise final. When the city council calls up an
application, the council shall, in its order of call-up, determine the procedure to be followed,
including the extent of preliminary processing and the rights of the parties. At a minimum, the
council shall follow the procedures in Section 17.05.550 174S. -Off), regarding appeals from
Type III decisions. (Ord. 1989 § 1(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 § 1(part), 2006).
33
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 840
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 ZONING
FILE NO. 16025
Applicant: City of Central Point
WHEREAS, on December 6, 2016 the Planning Commission, at a duly scheduled public hearing,
considered minor amendments to Chapter 17 Zoning of the Central Point Municipal Code ("CPMC")
as follows, and as specifically identified in Attachment "A — Staff Report dated December 6, 2016):
1. Section 17.05 Applications and Development Permit Review Procedures,
2. Section 17.05.550 Appeal Procedure — Type II and Type III Decisions; and
WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Planning Commission that the above referenced code amendments
only serve to clarify administration of Chapter 17 and as such are considered minor amendments and
as such do not alter current land use policy or modify standards.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by
this Resolution No. 840, does hereby forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to
approve the amendments as set forth in the Staff Report dated January 3, 2017 attached hereto by
reference as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 3rd day
of January 2017.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 3d day of January 2017.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 840 (12-06-2016)
34
a-
Consideration of authorizing Staff to proceed with various zoning code
corrections
f I I
I•~— �l �'. ,II I
II ,' ' J I Lei I '+ •J I i V 1 I �f L � I ^••
0
jr
•�
11
1 II _, ��
— ■
1 1 1i 1 1' 1.'� 1 �' — '•�f•. I,f'-1'1 LI.61 i
m_6.
%
�1
t
—II _
a-
Consideration of authorizing Staff to proceed with various zoning code
corrections
STAFF REPORT
STAFF REPORT
January 3, 2017
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 16033, Misc. Code Amendments
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director/
Assistant City Administrator
Consideration of minor changes to Chapter17 Zoning in the Central Point Municipal Code. Applicant:
Community Development Department
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, Planning Manager
BACKGROUND:
Over the course of the past several years Staff has identified numerous housekeeping changes that should
be made to Chapter 17, Zoning. The proposed changes do not affect current policy, but would clarify
administration of current policies and standards. At this time staff is only asking for authorization by the
Planning Commission to proceed with completion of the proposed code amendments. Once completed the
proposed code amendments will return to the Planning Commission for final action and recommendation
to the City Council.
During the Planning Commission discussion additional proposed amendments may be discussed and
added to the Planning Commission's authorization.
PROPOSED CHANGES:
The proposed amendments are:
Amendment I,Section 17.08. 010 Definitions, specific
Consideration:
• "Alley", redefine to be consistent with definition of "Alley" in Chapter 16, Subdivisions.
• Consider definition for "Tiny Homes". Tiny Homes are becoming more popular and may
need to be defined.
• "Frontage" As currently written there is some confusion with yard setback measurements
for lots abutting a dedicated street, which can include an alley, or highway.
• "Lot, Comer", needs to be adjusted for proposed changes in the definition of "Alley", and
"Frontage"
• Clarify definition of "Lot Coverage". needs to be revised to maintain consistency
throughout the zoning code Currently lot coverage in for standard zoning and TOD zoning
differ in method of calculation.
• Dwelling Unit definitions, there are two sets of definitions in the code; standard definitions
and TOD definitions. For dwelling units these definitions need to be revisited and made
consistent. As an example the term "Dwelling, Single -Family" uses the term "detached".
Technically any residence that is on its own lot, whether attached or detached is a single-
family residence.
Page 1 of 2
35
Amendment 2, Section 17.65.050, Table 2 and Table 5, TOD District/Corridor Zoning Standards
• Rear Yard Setback. Currently 15 feet in the TOD LMR and MMR, propose to reduce to 10
feet consistent with the R-2 and R-3 districts, which are similar in density and use. .
• 17.65.050 (F)(3)(a) As currently written parking in the TOD is subject to the parking
standards in 17.64 with some exceptions. One of the exceptions requires that, "Fifty
percent of all residential off-street parking areas shall be covered. Accessory unit parking
spaces are not required to be covered." Proposed change would remove this requirement
entirely relying on 17.64 for the determination of covered parking. This modification
removes the covered parking requirement for multi -family housing.
Amendment 3, Section 17.67.040(A)(9)(b), refers to design requirements for off-street pedestrian access
ways. Currently, there are two types of off-street access ways; Major and Minor. Section
17.67.040(A)(9)(b) needs to add the term "Major" to distinguish it from the minor off-street access ways
in Sectionl7.67.040(A)(9)(c
Amendment 4, Section 17.24.050(H)(2), allows use of TOD standards in the R-2 district per Section
17.65. For clarification a reference to Table 2 needs to be added. Table 2 controls site design standards.
Amendment S, Section 17.28.050(B) same fix as Amendment 4, adding a reference to Table 2.
Amendment 6, Section 17.75 — Design & Development Standards.
Amendment 6, Section 17.75.039, add minimum standards for off-street parking back-up/tum. This
primarily applies to residential development.
Amendment 7, Section 17.67 070(D), this section of the codes uses the term "shall" and sometimes
"should" for describing architectural design requirements. It is appropriate for the Planning Commission
to evaluate the use of "should" and replacing with "shall'.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
ACTION:
Consideration, discussion and authorization to proceed with above code amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff to proceed with the zoning amendments as outlined in the Staff Report dated January 3, 2017.
Page 2 of 2
36
2016 Buildable Lands Inventory
STAFF REPORT
o�-
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
January 3, 2017
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 16034 2016 Buildable Lands Inventory
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director/
Assistant City Administrator
Discussion/Update 2016 Buildable Lands Inventory. Applicant: Community Development
Department
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, Planning Manager
BACKGROUND:
The last Buildable Lands Inventory (BLI) was completed in 2008 and approved by Ordinance No. 1919.
The BLI is currently under review as a pre -requisite to completion of the Housing Element. At the
January 3, 2017 Planning Commission meeting staff will introduce the basic elements of the BLI and
highlighting the most significant findings and their implications as the Planning Commission reviews the
Housing Element.
As a brief overview of the BLI in 2008 the City's urban area (City Limits and UGB) accounted for 2,880
acres, of which 497 acres were considered as net buildable vacant acres. The net buildable acreage was
distribute by land use as shown in the table below.
Year
2008
2016
Land Use
Acres
%
Acres
%
Residential
1,516
52.6%
1,527
51.6%
Commercial
246
8.5%
236
7.9%
Industrial
225
7.8%
275
9.3%
Civic
108
3.7%
108
3.7%
Open Space
165
5.7%
175
5.9%
Right -of -Way
620
21.5%
620
21.6%
Total
2,880
100%
2,890
100%
Page 1 of 2
37
The above table also identifies 2016 acreage by land use.With the exception of Industrial lands the
percentage distribution of land by land use has remained constant. The growth in Industrial lands was a
result of an expansion of the UGB as was the growth in Open Space.
The real purpose of the BLI is to track net buildable lands. The objective is to maintain a twenty year
supply of land for each of the land use categories noted in the above table. Currently, the only concern
regarding adequacy of buildable land is in the Residential land use category. This is of particular concern
given the cost of housing, particularly affordable housing. The following table compares the net buildable
residential acreage in 2008 against today's available acreage.
Year 2008 % 2016 %
Land Use
Acres
%
Acres
%
R -L
30.4
10%
10.9
5.2%
R-1
139.2
45.9%
45.7
21.9%
R-2/LMR
97.7
32.2%
55.9
26.8%
R-3/MMR/HMR
36.2
11.9%
96.1
46.1%
Total
303.5
100%
208.11
100%
Over the past 8 years the net buildable residential acreage has declined by approximately 32%. Using the
20 year supply it would be expected that by 2016 we would have used 40% of our vacant residential
lands. However, the recession had a significant impact on housing, and currently supply is lagging
demand. As you review the above table, note the change in distribution (demand) of the vacant acreage by
land use, particularly the high density zoning districts. Does our inventory of land match the demand for
housing types?
At the meeting staff will discuss the role of the infill and redevelopment land use categories, particularly
suggestions on modification of the in -fill category and its effect on net buildable residential acreage.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
ACTION:
Discussion only.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discussion only.
Page 2 of 2
38