The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMay 2, 2017 PC PacketA C�TNTT L CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA May 2, 2017 - 6:00 p.m. I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Planning Commission members, Mike Oliver (chair), Tom Van Voorhees, Elizabeth Powell, Craig Nelson Sr., Kay Harrison, Amy Moore, John Whiting. IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of March 7, 2017 meeting minutes. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. VIII. DISCUSSION A. Consideration of Draft Housing Element Policies, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan B. Wild and Dangerous Animals IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS XI. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2017 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. H. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver, Craig Nelson, Kay Harrison, Amy Moore and John Whiting were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner, Molly Bradley, Community Planner and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the minutes of the February 7, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting. Amy Moore seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Amy Moore, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; John Whiting, yes; Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider miscellaneous amendments to various sections of the Central Point Municipal Code; The purpose of the amendments is to clarify administration of current policies and standards as they relate to Flood Damage Prevention, the TOD and TOD Design, off-street parking, off- street access ways, residential zoning flexibility and changes in commercial zones resulting from voter preference about medical marijuana dispensaries Mike Oliver read the rules for the legislative hearing. Tom Humphrey stated that the miscellaneous amendments to the code were for the purpose of clarification and consistency. He reviewed each of the proposed amendments. Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 2 Chapters 8.24 Flood Damage Prevention. This revises Development Permit Review Types. Type 1 is administrative relating to routine floodplain development projects. Type II is administrative relating to applications for minor partitions, floodway development proposals (except Type I) CLOMR required, uncommon streambank and variances. 17.08 Definitions. Alley: the revisions distinguish alleys from streets and the different standards that apply to each, Frontage: change removes unnecessary reference to highway. Dwelling, Single Fauuly: attached and detached Single Fanuly Dwellings are better defined for TOD and R-1 zoning district consistency. Dwelling, Multiple Family: Multi -family units are defined for the purpose of the Housing Element update. The commissioners asked for clarification of tiny homes and how they would be defined. Mr. Humphrey responded that it should be addressed in the Housing Element. 17.20.050 Density, lot area, etc. Reduces the minimum lot area in the R-1-6 residential single family district from 5,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet to match the standard single family minimum in the TOD-LMR district. This creates more flexibility in older parts of town to redevelop narrow and `through' lots with single family uses. 17.24-.050 R-2, Residential Two -Family District. Allows applicant the discretion between using R-2 or TOD-LMR development standards with the exception of density requirements. It revises changes made previously in 2013. 17.28-.050 R-3, Residential Multiple -Family District. Allows applicant the discretion between using R-3 or TOD-MMR development standards with the exception of density requirements. It revises changes made previously in 2008. The commissioners agreed that there was great benefit to the flexibility and design standards. 17.37.030(E) C -2(M) Commercial -Medical District. Removes medical marijuana dispensaries as a conditional use in this zoning district. Implements prohibition resulting from November 8, 2016 election results in which residents decided that the City should not have dispensaries within the city limits. 17.44.030.A,20 C-4, Tourist and Office -Professional District. Removes Medical Marijuana Dispensaries as a conditional use in this zoning district. Implements prohibition resulting from November 8, 2016 election results in which residents decided that the City should not have dispensaries within the city limits. 17.46.030.29 C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial District. Removes Medical Marijuana Dispensaries as a conditional use in this zoning district. Implements prohibition resulting from November 8, 2016 election results in which residents decided that the City should not have dispensaries within the city limits. Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 3 17.64.04 Bicycle Parking Requirements. Subsection of Section 17.64 Off - Street Parking and Loading: Revises table to eliminate the requirement for covered bicycle parking. Also changes the `congregate' residential housing language and makes requirements consistent with 17.75.039(H)(3) off-street parking design and development standards, "Exceptions to Bicycle Parking." Required covered bicycle parking is unrealistic, multi -family language was confusing and cross references needed to be cleaned up. 17.65 TOD Districts and Corridors. Makes changes to Table 2, TOD District Zoning Standards for rear setbacks in TOD-LMR and TOD-MMR zoning districts from 15 feet to 10 feet. Adjusts minimum density in HMR zone from 30 to 25. Creates more flexibility in older parts of town to encourage infill and use of the TOD standards on older lots. Mr. Humphrey stressed the importance of managing densities in the city. Molly Bradley stated that the changes would allow development of difficult lots and get a better product. The commissioners asked about variances for developing those lots. Mr. Humphrey responded that in order to get a variance it would be needed to prove hardship. So being somewhat flexible on the standards would allow the development without the need of a variance. 17.65.050 Zoning Regulations, Development Standards (Parking). Removes requirement that 50% of all off-street vehicle parking for multifamily uses in the TOD be covered. `Except for multi -family housing' language is added and reference is made to parking standards in Section 17.64. This creates consistency between TOD and R-3 requirements. 17.67.040. Design Standards TOD District. Refers to design requirements for off street and pedestrian access ways. Revision adds the term "major" to off street pedestrian access ways. Currently off street pedestrian access ways exist as "major" and "minor" and need to be distinguished from one another. 17.75.039.E Off -Street Parking Design and Development Standards. This amendments adds minimum standards for off-street parking back-up and turning to existing off-street turnaround standards. 17.75.039.H.3. Off -Street Parking, Bicycle Parking. Amendments revise exceptions to bicycle parking as referenced in Table 17.64.04. Creates consistency between TOD and Conventional zoning standards. 17.67.070.D Building Design Standards, Building Facades. Adds reference to frontage on a public street and deletes statement in subsection 3 Residential, adi which is redundant, indecisive and confusing. The change deletes redundancy and a contradiction between `shall' and `should' language. The Public Hearing Was Opened. Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2017 Page 4 There were no comments. The Public Hearing Was Closed. Mr. Humphrey stated that Staff recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 842 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council. Craig Nelson made a motion to approve Resolution 842 Approving Minor Amendments to Title 17 Zoning. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison: yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes. Motion passed. VII. DISCUSSION A. Updates Tom Humphrey gave the commissioners an update on the Costco appeal. He said the appellate court had affirmed LUBA's decision. He said that the Applicant had requested the appellate court to reconsider and they had declined. He stated that the time for appeal would be over soon and they did not expect another appeal. The permits were ready to be issued and Costco was hoping to be able to be open by October. Mr. Humphrey reviewed current projects. He said that the Microdevices had been approved and the Vet Hospital was almost done. The Credit Union on Freeman was underway and there was a proposed Senior Living Facility and an apartment complex that were being reviewed. He added that the railroad crossing was planned to start this year, VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Craig Nelson made a motion to adjourn. John Whiting seconded. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 7:25. P.m. The foregoing minutes of the March 7, 2017 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of, May, 2017. Planning Commission Chair CONSIDERATION OF DRAFT HOUSING ELEMENT POLICIES, CITY OF CENTRAL POINT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM V -B pt- AVW4& CENTRAL POINT STAFF REPORT May 2, 2017 Manning Department Torry Humphrey, MCP, CoromurzFty Development Director/ Assistant City ,administrator Consideration of Draft Housing Element Policies, City of Central Point Comprehensivc Plan. (Applicant: City cif Centra[ Point) STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt, Planning Manager BACKGROUND: The City has completed the inventory and needs analysis component of the Housing Element, which was previously presented to the Planning Commission. At the May 2, 2017 meeting time proposed Goals and Policies of the Housing Element (Attaehmeat "A" j will be discussed. On April 11, 2017 the Citizens Advisory Committee discussed the draft policies and forwarded a recommendation to the City Council and Planning Com ission to accept. Before discussion of the Goals and Po licies staff will provide a brief summary of the housing analysis as background for the goals and policies discussion. The Housing Element is scheduled for a public hearing in June. ISSUES: As previously discussed the primary issue in preparing the Housing Element is the minimal projected need for vacant residential acreage. The Iow demand for residential acreage is a ftwtion of the population projections prepared by Portland State University Population Research Center, per RB2253. It has been previously noted that as enacted by law HB2253 is required to be updated every four years. If the growth in population accelerates, per the updated population projections, the City can adjust upward its vacant residential land needs. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "X'— Housing Element Goals and Policies ACTION: Consideration of the Goals and Policies for the Housing Element_ RECOMMENDATION: Page I of 2 Discuss and modify as appropriate and direct staff to incorporate in the draft Housing Element. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENT "A" — HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 1. To provide an adequate supply of housing to meet the diverse needs of the City's current and projected households. Policy 1.1. Continue to support new residential development at minimum residential densities. Policy 1, 2. Develop a Housing, Implementation Pian that is regularlyupdated based current market conditions. Policy 1.3. Provide an efficient and consistent development review process. Policy 1.4. Work with regional partners to develop and implement measure that reduce up ont housing development costs, Policy 1.5. Support UGB expansions and annexations that can be efficiently provided with urban services and that will in a timely manner meet the City's housing needs. Policy 1.6. �Vhen properly mitigated support higher dt=ity residential development within the Downtown and older surrounding residential area, capitalizing on availability of existing infrastructure and supporting revitalization e[f mt Goal 2. To encourage the development and preservation of fair and affordable housirb. Policy 1.1.Obtain local, state, and foderal financial resources and incentives that support the development and preservation of affordable housing. Policy 1.2. Through a Housing Implementation Plan explore and promote programs and incentives that support new af#brdable housing. Policy 1.3. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional P[an's program addressing regional housing strategies, particularly as they :apply to affordable housing Policy 1.4. Support regional efforts addressing homelessness and housing, medical and social services to special need households. Goal 3. To, maintain a timely supply of vacant residential acres sufficient to accommodate development of new housing to serve the City's projected population. Policy 1.1. Provide a sufficient inventory of residential planned and zoned vacant land to meet projected demand in terms of density, tenure, unit size, accessibility, and cost. Policy 1.2. The City's new vacant residential land use mix shall support an average density of not less than 6.9 dwelling units per gross. ATTACHMENT "A" — HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Policy 1.3. Update the Housing Element's vacant acreage needs every four -years consistent with the PSU Population Research Centers update of population. Policy 1.4. To avoid speculation the City shall, when expanding the UGB establish procedures that give priority to lands that will be developed in a timely manner. Goal 4. To ensure that a variety of housing will be provided in the City in terms of location, tyke, primo and tenure, according to the proiectcd needs of the population. Policy 1. 1. Residential land use designations on the General Land Use Plan and the Zoning Map shall be compliant with the residential land use needs identified in the Housing Element. Policy 1.2. Based on the Fundings of the Housing Implementation Plan incentivize housing types that are needed but not being provided in adequate numbers by the Market forces - Policy 1.3. In larger residential developments encourage a mix of densities and housing types to accommodate a variety of households based on age and "income levels. Policy 1.4- Support programs that encourage the ability of older residents to age in ptace by making existing housing more age friendly and accessible. Croat 5. To ensure that municipal development procedures and standards are not unreasonable impediments to the provision of affordable housing. Policy I.1. As part of a Housing Implemezntation Plan periodically evaluate development procedures and standards for compliance with the goals of this Housing EIement and modify as appropriate. Goal 6. To develop and maintain a Housing Implementation Flan that includes programs that monitor and address the housing affordability needs of the City's low- and moderate - income households. Policy 1.1. Support collaborative partnerships with non-profit organizations, affordable lousing builders, and for-profit developers to gain greater access to various sources of affordable housing funds. Policy 1.2. Support and participate in the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan's program addressing regional housing strategies. Policy 1.3. Address the special housing needs of seniors through the provision of affordable housing and housing related services. ATTACHMENT "A" — HOUSING ELEMENT GOALS AND POLICIES Goal 7. To assure that residential development standards encourage and support attractive and health neighborhoods. Policy l.1. Encourage quality design throughout the City that acknowledges neighborhood character, provides balanced connectivity (multi -modal), and integrates recreational and open space opportunities. Policy 1.2. Provide flexible development standards For projects that exceed minimum standards For natural resource protection, open space, public gathering places, and energy efficiency. Policy 1.3. Where appropriate encourage mixed uses at the neighborhood level that enhance the character and function of the neighborhood and reduce impacts on tate City's transportation system. Policy 1.4. Support minimum parking standards for multiple family development ser -ed by public transit. Policy 1.5. Maintain and enforce Chapter 1.7.71 Agricultural Mitigation ensuring that all new residential development along the periphery of the Urban Growth Boundary includes an adequate buffer between the urban uses and abutting agricultural uses on lands zoned Exclusive Farm Use (EKD. WILD O"b"AfflEROUS ANIMALS r City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 �I� 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.63134 PV www.centr'a1�0intore¢onLpy To: Planning Commission From: Stephanie Holtey, Community Planner U Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director Pe: Wild and Dangerous Animals Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director May 2, 2017 Purpose: Eva.tuate CPMC 6.01.010 definition (Attachment "A") for "Wild or Dangerous Anima[" to determine if large snakes, such as pythons and boa constrictors are wild or dangerous and if code amendments are necessary to be more specific so that the Wild and Dangerous Animal provisions in CPMC 6.10 are enforceable (Attachment -T). The Planning CommissioWs recor=ended interpretation will be forwarded to the City Council for consideration- Background, onsideration Background. The City recently received an inquiry about having boa constrictors in the City. Specifically, the resident requested information about having a home ocLupation to sell offspring from his pet snakes. in evaluating the resident's inquiry, the city determined that: a borne occupation would not be approved because keeping animals for commercial purposes is prohibited per CPMC 6.06.010, The code also prohibits "wild or dangerous animals," which are defined in CPMC 6.01.010 as: `— Any aninual, zohich because of its size, vicious nature, poisonous bite or sting, or o0wr cturraciMstics ruould constitute a danger to human life or property if not kept or nwintained under the immediate control of the ozoner, ruhich behaves in such a manner that the owner knows or should reasonably knmit fluat the animal kers a predisposition to attack or bite ivrsons or otfrer animals xuithout provocation. " After conferring with the City Attorney, this code language does not provide for a black and white interpretation relative to snakes, such as non -venomous constrictor snakes including boa constrictors and pythons. A code interpretation is necessary to determine: 1. If snakes, such as boa constrictors and pythons, are considered "wild or dangerous animals" per the code's definition. 2. What characteristics and thresholds form the basis of this determination? 3. How are snakes different than other species, such as dogs, that pose similar threats? 4. Are code amendments necessary to add clarity and greater specificity for regulatory purposes? Discussion: The Planning Commission is being asked to discuss this issue relative to constrictor snakes, including boa constrictors and pythons, and to forward a recommended interpretation and/or action to the City Chapter 6.01 DEF[NITiONS Sections: 6,01.010 Definitions. ATTACHMENT ".A—to 6.01.010 Definitions. For purposes of this title, the following definitions apply: "Animal" means any mammal, reptile, amphibian, insect or bird. "Animal at large" means any animal, exc4uding cats, off the premises of its owner and not under complete physical control of its owner or other person. 'Owner" means any person having a property right in the anirrral or who harbors the animal or who has it in his or her care, custody, or control or knowingly permits the animal to remain on or about his or her premises. 'Wild or dangerous animal" means any animal which, because of its size, vicious nature, poisonous bite or sting, or other characteristics, would constitute a danger to human life or property if not kept or maintained sender the immediate control of the owner, which behaves in such a manner that the owner knows or should reasonably know that the animat has a predisposition to attack or bite persons or other anirrmis without provocation. (Ord. 1001 §2(part), 2007). Mobile Version ATTACHMENT "_E-" Chapter 6.10 WILD OR DANGEROUS ANIMALS Sections: 6.10.010 Wild or dangerous animals prohibited. 6.10.030 Exemptions. 6.10.010 Wild or dangerous animals prohibited. A. Except as provided in this chapter, no person shall Keep or maintain any wild or dangerous animal within the city, B. The keeping or maintenance of any wild or dangerous anima€ is declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated in conformity with the provisions of this title and the provisions of Chapter 8.04 pedaining to nuisances. (Ord. 1901 §2(part), 2097).. 6.10.030 Exemptions. A. The prohibition set forth in Section 6.10.010 shalt not apply to the keeping of wild or dangerous animals in the following Gases: I. The keeping of such animals in zoos, bona fide educational or rmdical institutions, museums or any rather place where they are kept as live specimens for the public to view or for the purposes of instruction or study- 2. tudy 2. The keeping of such animals for exhibition to the public of such animals by a circus, carnival c r other exhibit of show. 3. The keeping of such animals in a bona fide, licensed veterinary hospital for treatment. (turd. 1901 §2(part), 2007). Mobile Version 8