Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNov. 7, 2017 PC PacketA CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 7, 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, Craig [nelson Sr., Kay Harrison, Amy Moore, Jahn Whiting and Jim Mock. IV. CORRESPONDENCE V. MINUTES Review and approval of the meeting minutes from September S, 2017. VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VII. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to consider amendments to Section 17.05300 (C) — Notice of Application for Type lI Decision and Section 17.05.400 (C) Notification Requirements for Type III Decision in the Central Point Municipal Code. Applicant: City of Central Point B. Public Hearing to consider amendments to Section 17.05.600 (H) - General Procedural Provisions, City Council Review in the Central Point Municipal Code. Applicant: City of Central Point VIII. DISCUSSION IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS X. MISCELLANEOUS A. Planning and Development Update XI. ADJOURNMENT 1 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2017 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04 P.M. If. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver, Tom Van Voorhees, John Whiting, Craig Nelson, and Kay Harrison were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Stephanie Holtey, Community Phmeer, Molly Bradley, Commtmity Plainer, and Karmen Skekoo, Planning Secretary. )PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE 1U. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Fair Housing Council IV. MINUTES Torn Van Voorhees noted that John Pastorino's name was misspelled on pg. I I of the minutes. Kay Harrison [Wade a motion to approve the August 1, 2017 Minutes as corrected. Craig Nelson Seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. John Whiting, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES None VI. BUSINESS A. Consideration of Resolution No. 894 approving the Housing Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. (File No. CPA- 17004, Applicant: City of Central Point) Community Development DirectorTom Humphrey said that the Commissioners had heard the Housing Element previously and this was to refine and correct some clerical errors. He enumerated the changes and stated that the information contained in the Housing Element would be used to update the Urban Growth Boundary, addressing housing affordability and housing types and densities. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2017 Page 2 Mr. Humphrey clarified that the current Housing Element would be the basis for any decisions until this update was adopted. Amy Moore Made a motion recommending approval of Resolution No. 844 approving the Housing Element, City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan. John Whiting seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes. Motion passed. B. Public Hearing - Consideration of a Class "C" Variance to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zoning district as necessary to partition a 0.22 acre site into two (2) parcels. The project site is located at 765 Ash Street, which has frontage on both Ash and Chestnut Street. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37S 2W 11BA, Tax Lot 600. Applicant: Bryan and Lisa Herrmann. Mike Oliver read the rules of procedure governing a quasi-judicial hearing. There was no conflict, cx parte contact or bias on the part of the Commissioners. John Whiting said that he had looked the property up on the Jackson County website and Torn Van Voorhees stated he had driven by the property. Stephanie Holtey said that the Applicant is requesting approval of a Class C Variance to the ntaxinrtun density standard in the R-1-6 zone as nemessary to obtain Final plat approval to partition a 0.22 acre lot into two parcels. The property has previously received tentative plan approval subject to conditions addressing density and agency requirements. The tentatively approved parcels are within the minimumlrnaximum range for lot size and width, but exceed the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zone. The requested variance would increase density commensurate with the minimum lot size allowed in the R-1-6 zone. The project site is a tlunugh-lot with froutage on bath Ash and Chestnut Street. Per the tentative plan, the through lot will be split so each parcel will have frontage on a public street consistent with residential development permitted in the R-1-6 zone and most surrounding properties. Based oti the Applicant's Findings and the Planning Department supplemealai Findings, saaff recommends the variance is justified on the basis that it complies with CPMC 17,13.500(C) variance criteria and is necessary to permit reasonable and permitted single family residential development that would otherwise be prohibited by strict application of the maximum density standard. Ms. Holtey said the Class "C" Variance application is in compliance with the criteria set forth in Chapter 17.13.500(C) of the Central Point Municipal Code Planning Commission Minutes September S, 2017 Page 3 Public Hearing Opened Applicants Lisa and Bryan Hermann The Applicants stated that the staff report was very complete and they offered to answer any questions the Commissioners had. Tom Van Voorhees asked if there would be constriction of the sidewalk on Chestnut Street. Applicant responded that the lot next door had a sidewalk that ended at their property so they would be extending the sidewalk the length of their property. They noted that there were no existing sidewalks on Ash Street, Public Hearing Closed Craig Nelson made a motion to approve the Class "C" Variance to the maximum density standard in the R-1-6 zoning district as necessary to partition a 0.22 acre site: into two (2) parcels. The project site is located at 765 Ash Street, which his frontage on both Ash and Chestnut Street. Amy Moore seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; John Whiting, yes. Motion passed. C. Public Hearing - Annexation of 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane comprising 3.64 acres. This applicatloa is accompanied by a comprehensive plan amendment and a cone change which will he considered separately. It is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 11Ca Tax Lob 8300 and 8400. Applicant: Bob Fellows; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. Planning Commission Chair Mike Oliver staters that the quasi-judicial procedures applied as previously stated. There was no conflict, Ex Parra Contact or bias on the part of the Commissioners. Tom Van Voorhees stated he had driven by the property. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey said the applicant would like to bring his property into the City and develop it for residential purposes. The property must be annexed in order to consider land use amendment, a zone change and subsequent development. He said the Planning Department sent a letter inviting area property owners to participate in this annexation. The two immediate properties that are still in the County have elected not to participate. The subject property is adjacent to the city limits along all property lines and the property owner has consented in writing to the annexation. Mr. Humphrey stated that the application complied with all annexation criteria. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2017 Page 4 Jay Harland, Applicant's Agent Mr. Harland stated that the annexation application met all the criteria and he requested that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the application. Public Hearing opened No comments Public Hearing Closed. The Commissioners asked what would happen if the property was used for a purpose not allowed by the City's zoning when it was annexed. Mr_ Humphrey responded that there was an agreement with Jackson County wherein the City would be advised and asked for commcnts should the county receive an application with regard to the property. At that time the City could express any objections. Kay Hanson made a motion to approve the Annexation of 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane comprising 3.64 acres. Amy Moore seconded the motion. The commissioners had no comments or questions. ROLL CALL: Torn Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Join Whiting, yes. Motion passed. Mike Oliver stated that the Planning Commission would heir item no. "E" next and then item "17" at the request of Community Development Director Tom Humphrey. E. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Clarification for two (2) parcels totaling 3.64 acres at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane, from Jackson County land use designation Industrial to Central Point land use designation Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Corridor, and identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 11C, Tax Lots 8300 and 8400. Applicant: Bob Fellows; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. Planning Commission Chair Mike Oliver stated that the quasi-judicial procedures applied as previously stated. There was no conflict, Ex Parte Contact or bias on the part of the Commissioners. Tom Van Voorhees stated he had driven by the property. Molly Bradley said the Applicant has requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment/clarification in preparation for a subsequent zone change application for the above referenced Property, The application is filed concurrently with an application for annexation and an application for a zone change. Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2017 Page 5 Ms. Bradley stated that in accordance with the City/County Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement, the Property retains its County land use and zoning designations until annexation into the City, She stated the purpose of this application is to assure that the zone change will remain in compliance with the land use designation on the comprehensive plan map. She explained the existing conventional zoning designations remain in the TOD Corridor as underlying zones, and TOD designations represent optional standards that could be applied to development at the property owner's discretion. The TOD Corridor allows a broad range of land uses, including medium dunsity and multi -family residential, commercial and industrial uses. The Applicant is requesting that the Property maintain the land use designation of TOD Corridor when it is annexed, but apply a different zoning district than what is currently planned. To ensure that the proper procedures are followed, the Applicant submitted an application for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to clarify that the subsequent none change is acceptable under the land use designations. The Applicant is requesting a 7.onc change front TOD-NIMRIR-3 to TOD-LMRIR-2, which is consistent with the allowed uses within the TOD-Corridor. Ms. Bradley said that the application complied with the approval criteria and is consistent with the applicable Statewide Planning Goals and Comprehensive Plan. There are adequate services and transportation networks available. Kay flarrison asked about the letter from The Fair lousing Council and the reference to Goal t0. els. Bradley replied that there were no issues with goal 10 as this application is to assure that the: zone change is compliant with the comprehensive plan trap. Jay llarlarad Mr. Harland said the application was precautionary so as to make certain the zone change complied with the comprehensive plan. He explained to the Commissioners the reason for the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was to clarify that the text of the TOD Corridor does not conflict with the requested Toning. As it reads now, the wording is ambiguous. Ile asked the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the application.. Public Hearing Opened Vivian Grissom Ms. Grissom said she has lived on Chicory lane for 50 years. She expressed her concerns regarding a current water drainage problem. She asked what the applicant would do in order to prevent causing additional drainage problems on her property. Kay Harrison asked Stephanie Holtey what the City would do to address these types of issues with new development. Ms. Holtey said the development process does address drainage on project sites and the applicants were required to do the engineering work to identify any solutions necessary. Planning Commission Minutes September S, 1017 Page. 6 Jay Harland Mr. Harland said that the requested zone change would have less impervious surface requirements than some others. Also that Haskell Street was expected to be extended to Beall Lane and the City would be working on storm drainage when that happened. He added that they were aware of the current problems in that area. Public Hearing Closed Amy Moore made a motion to approve Resohttion no. 845 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve a Comprehensive Plan Amendment/Clarificatiun for two (2) parcels totaling 3.64 acres at 3428 and 3470 Chicory lane, from Jackson County land use designation Industrial to Central Point land use designation Transit Oriented Development Corridor. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL. CALL; Tom Van Voorhees, abstain; Craig Nelson. yes; Kay Harrison, yes, Amy Moore, Yes, John Whiting, yes. Motion passed. Mike Oliver declared a S minute break at 8.10 g. in, The Meeting reconvened at 6:15 p.m. D. Public Hearing — Consideration of a Zone (map) Change application from TOD Corridor Medium -Mix Residential (TOD-MMR) to TOD Corridor Low -Mix Residential (TOD — LMR) for 3.64 acres of property located at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 11C, Tax Lots 8300 and 8400. Applicant: Bob Fellows; Agent: CSA Planning, Ltd. Planning Commission Chan Mike Oliver stated that the quasi-judicial procedures applied as previously stated. There was no conflict, ex parte contact or bias on the part of the Commissioners. Tom Van Voorhees stated he had driven by the property. Tom Humphrey explained the procedures and notification requirements of DLCId and various affected agencies for comprehensive plan and zone change applications. He said the Applicant has requested a minor Zone Change for property that is in the UGB but has not yet been annexed into the City. This application was submitted concurrently with an application for Annexation and Comprehensive Plan Amendment. He stated that in considering the zone change there were several criteria that needed to be considered. Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compatibility 2. Committed Residential Density Planning Commission Minutes September 5, 2017 Page 7 3. Traffic Impact Analysis Mr. Humphrey said the zone change is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. He added the Applicant had done a traffic study and the zone change to decrease density requirements will riot have an appreciable unpact on traffic. Additionally, there are adetluate public services and transportation networks are available to serve the Property at the highest density of use. Mr. Humphrey explained that as this was a minor amendment it needed to only be consistent with the C:PNIC Comprehensive Plan, howevc-r in response to the letter from the Fair Housing Counsel the City is providing additional evidence from the buildable lands inventory and proposed Housing Element to analym the impact of the proposed zone change lie said the City would provide the revised staff report to tate Fair housing Council and if they continue to have concerns, thry have the opportunity to address them at the Council meeting. Public Hearing Opened Jay Harland Mr. Marland said that staff had provided all the criteria for the none change and requested that the Planning Commission approve die application. 11c added that the zone change will allow development that the community want,; aM nctxis Tom Van Voorhees asked whether the houses would be finished prior to the railroad crossing completion. Mr. 1-larland responded that it would probably be completed within two years. Public Hearing Closed Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to approve Resolution 846, per the revised staff report, approving a Tone (map) Change application from TOD Corridor Medium -Mix Residential (TOD-MMA) to TDD Corridor Low -Mix Residential CrOD - LMR) for 3.64 acres of property located at 3428 and 3470 Chicory Lane. Kay Harrison Seconded. Rall Call: Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes, Amy Moore, yes, John Whiting, yes. Motion passed VII. DISCUSSION IX. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey made an announcement that Molly Bradley was leaving to attend graduate school and this would be her last meeting. Planning Commission Minutes September S, 2017 Page 8 X. ADJOURN14 UM s � � Tsom �� � seconded. Rel saic �", Meeting was adjourned at 9:05 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the Scptembcr 5, 2017 Panning Commission meeting were apprvved by the Planning Commission at its =#W , _of November, 2017. Planning Commission Chair CODE AMENDMENTS- NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS `r City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.centmlpointormgon.gov 1` CENTRAL MINT g STAFF REPORT November 7, 2017 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director AGENDA ITEM: File No. CA -17002 Consideration of amendments to Section 17.05300 (C) — Notice of Application for Type H Decision and Section 17.05.400 (C) Notificatiou Requirements for Type If Decision in the Central Point NiunicipaI Code. Applicant: City of Central Point STAFF SOURCE: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director BACKGROUND: The recent consideration and approval of a Site Plan for an apattmu nt complex in Twin Creeks led to a Joint City CouncillPlaming Commission Study Session during which a change to public noticing requirements was discussed. The consensus of the elected and appointed officials was to expand the notification radius around land use project sites. DISCUSSION: Central Point has been following the state requirements for mailing public notices as they apply to land usa development and we have been using a 100 foot radius around a prosect site. local citizens argue that this is an inadequate distance for there to be made aware of land use changes. The City Council agreed and directed staff to investigate the practices of other local jurisdictions. It was subsequently decided to expand the mailing radius to 250 feet around a project site and also to post a sign with the notice on the site. ISSUES: There are no issues relative to this proposal and it is consistent with Statewide Planning Goal #1 which advocates the development ofa citizen invulvenrent program that ensure the opportunilyfor citizens to be involved in all phases of the Manning process. The City has not received any correspondcace (either support or objection) from the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) to whom a notice of this code amendment was sent. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: There are not recommended _ ns conditiofor approval other than the amendment of the municipal code. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Ordinance No. _ An Ordinance Ammding CPMC Chapter 17.05.300 (C) and 17.05.400 (C), to Increase the Public Notification Requirements for Type 11 and Type IU Land Use Applications Attachment "B" — Correspondence submitted by Katy Mallams, dated, October 30, 2017 Attachment "C" — Resolution No. 848 is ACTION: Open publte h6ift and wasider the proposed amendment W tt "Zoning Cade, close public hearing and 1 ] rec;urnmend approvd t6the City. Council: 2), recommend appmW911 with revisions; of 3)do* the application. RECOMMENDATION: Recommcwl approval of Resolution No. 848. PLr the Staff Report datW November 7, 2017. `A ATTACHMENT u A " ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CPMC CHAPTER 17.05.300 (C) AND 17.05.400 (C), TO INCREASE THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE If AND TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATIONS RECITALS: A. Pursuant to CPMC, Chapter 1.01.040, the City Council, may from time to time make revisions to its municipal code which shall become part of the overall document and citation. B. At a joint study session on August 14, 2017, the Central Point City Council and the City Planning Commission discussed ways to improve citizen involvement in the planning process. As a consequence, the Community Development Department initiated an ordinance amending Chapter 17.05. C. On November 7, 2017, the City Planning Commission held a properly advertised public hearing; reviewed the Staff Report; heard testimony and comments, and recommended approval of the Municipal Code Amendment to the City Council. D. On November 9, 2017, the C4 of Central Point City Council held a properly advertised public hearing; reviewed the Staff Report; heard testimony and comments, and deliberated on approval of the Municipal Code Amendment. E. Words ugh are to be deleted and words in bold are added. THE PEOPLE OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Amendments to Section 17.05.300(C) Notice of Application for Type II Decision expanding the landowner notification requirement from 100 -ft to 250 -ft from the exterior boundaries of the project site; and, increasing the agency notification requirement for roadway or railway impacts consistent with landowner notification. 17.05.300 Type II procedure. C. Notice of Application for Type II Decision. 1. No less than twenty days before the community development director makes a decision, written notice of the application shall be mailed to all of the following: City Council Ordinance No. (11/9/2017) 13 a. Applicant; b. Owners of record of the subject property; c. Owners of record within a minimum of one-Lyyo_hundred fifty 250 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 she two hundred fifty 250 feet 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 application shall include: a. The street address or other easily understood reference to the site; b. The relevant approval criteria by name and number of code sections; c. The place. date and time the comments are due, and the person to whom the comments should be addressed; d. A description of the proposal and identification of 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; h. 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; City Council Ordinance No. (11/9/2017) 14 i. 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 N you receive this notice it shall be promptly forwarded to the purchaser. 3. The notice shall allow a fourteen -day period for the submission of written comments, starting from the date of mailing. All comments must be received by the city by five p.m. on that fourteenth day. D. Administrative Decision Requirements. The community development director or designee shall make a Type If 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 mad 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; d. Any governmental agency that is entitled to notice under an intergovernmental agreement entered into with the city, and other agencies that were noted or provided comments during the application review period; and e. Property owners located within one hundred 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 City Council Ordinance No. (11/9/2017) 15 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 I-Fle; 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_ SECTION 2. Amendments to CPMC 17A5.400(C) Notification Requirements increasing landowner and agency notifloation requirements from 104 -ft to 250 -ft, and adding the requirement to post on-site notice of public hearing for Type III land use actions. 17.06.400 Type Nl procedure. 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 ere} wo hundred WU r� feet of the site, including tenants of a mobile home or manufactured dwelling park; City Council Ordinance No. (11/912017) ®R 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 fef-when there is a proaosed two hundrr _ itf�yL j fggt.�rL[r'_- ,t applEcatls that-ere-aasattff��ra#fectlr}g#heir 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 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. At the applicant's discretion, notice may also be provided to the Department of Land Conservation and Development. ai tines paac 2 b, Content of Notice. Notice of a Type III hearing shall be mailed per this subsection C and shall contain the following information: aj. An explanation of the nature of the application and the proposed land use or uses that could be authorized for the property; Mi. The applicable criteria and standards from the zoning and subdivision code and comprehensive plan that apply to the application; siii. The street address or other easily understood geographical reference to the subject property; djy. The date, time, and location of the public hearing; ev. 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 decislon-maker an opportunity to respond to the Issue prior to the close of the flnal hearing means that an appeal based on that issue cannot be raised at the State Land Use Board of Appeals; City Council Ordinance No. (11/9/2017) 17 fv_i. The name of a city representative to contact and the telephone number and email address where additional information on the application may be obtained; Qvii. 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; #viii. 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; ' (. A general explanation of the requirements to submit testimony, and the procedure for conducting public hearings; and }x. The following notice: Notice to mortgagee, lien holder, vendor, or seller. The City of Central Point Land Development Code requires that if you receive Vs notice it shall be promptly forwarded to Ure purchaser. b_ jh9 CoMu,►,>itY.dgvglgpRI_e„R4 Otfgqur CK4Pj l IM4h4I OV-P?(v am•0 tqAA�mAN Qt ^Wo sha}l.bo rRao, 3 part of lk'Q t Ilya 12 Oq.2Ks4ns WhovAM_M(D*SA 2. Oh`; ile Posting. Putti% rs43$Ce signs s►all e vomitn he rra'act si €w an T Ill Land use acWn scoord_igg to the foifowinn: La_ J5 of r , N ire R;gps Ah IE it — — �S e— -. �gropr�sa�c �d uses actions j_hedato of the puhltc hearitg, and the Clty.giGentm] P*tf#le numWfol thy Proposed land use action._ b. location and number of skins. A 92MM nq I�_sii Oust be.a!gcx i an h ILY, in_g streontagegf e _ite- tfrolsavr_61AlWaa_rolcisuutreet_a Qq - for d each 600 -feet. or fraction thsreofof. _Nglice signs -must ba-got2d_within 14-fwl pf a rt7 C}perty line along the street srtd -mom i e e �striart� and rr�o�grists. Nobca si ns may not be ousted in aub3ic_fichtIQf-mvay unless the Jprid ugg action -MM ificatly a s toa.2s1t)IIC ri�tst-�W�YJ1 p�l[!g nays. t ggcur!n.wav, care hAuld �g,l~11en to comely wllh_C%ar VislorbArea re rlre�ePIs s se!_€_ forth inaction 1llriiaifr�i+ City Council Ordinance No. (11/9/2017) 18 r_.. -S9R ?2sC �.t&YL 7� e�ulr I r1 h 1�. n�L4ler_th8n 1 Oys rior hLe jr M t 9 v q 1 J5 -bIAL LOad0 1 a 0( +tach bodY.lh?[ heart the application Po9ted signs shall be removed within IQAays faln9Wirt ! e_Fina1_dep si n. .9ft�4F rt- I �aq-- Q �l4I r gg n a fl�epa n a davit gfOn Me notice Mfigg and Uie aKdeVi "Lbe part O—LIhq fi a. T f ida+rit shall stalea hat he_jV. _i *WIa§ p] Pd the npniber o icested and OwaM Qf the pernn(s I *ft mted ib$ n PASSED by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this — day of Novwnber 2017. A?TES7% City Recorder City Council Ordinance No. (1IAM 17) W Mayor Hank WWiams ATTACHMENT " ,* To; Central Point Planning Commission and City Council Subject: area of public notification Date: October 30, 2017 Of course, the area of public notification area should be increased from 100 feet to 250 feet for public notice of all meetings about planning actions conducted by the City. 100 feet is barely one city lot. The effects of planning decisions can reverberate throughout a neighborhood. 100 feet is not nearly adequate to inform neighbors who will be affected by planning actions. Neglecting to inform people of government actions can create a long-lasting legacy of ill -will, mistrust, and delays. Better to make the effort to make people part of the process early on so their coneems can be addressed and their ideas incorporated whenever possible. As an example, we recently discovered that at least half of our neighbors received no notification of the October 10 meeting of the Citizen's Advisory Committee to discuss a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Area CP -5 and CP -6, although they could be signi ficantiy a ffected by any decisions. 'rhe entire planning process could have been completed without their knowledge, leaving them with no standing in the matter. That is not how democracy should function. No%vadays it seums that many people do riot read the local newspaper, much less the legal notices. People who live outside the City see no reason to look at the City's website. Many people do not even pay much attention to their mail unless they think it's a bi[l. The City should consider a notice on the envelope to get people's attention, perhaps a red stamp that says''tliis action may affect your property". It is the responsibility of the City to ensure that citizens of the City and the County are aware of planning decisions the City is contemplating that nug[ht affect them. I urge you to increase the public notification area to 250 feet. Thank you. /s/ Katy Mallams 2855 Heritage Road, Central Point 97502 20 19 y .AC-HME� rr G PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 848 A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 17.05 TO INCREASE THE PUBLIC NOTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR TYPE II AND TYPE III LAND USE APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017 the Planning Commission at a duly noticed public hearing, considerer) major amendments to Chapter 17.05 of the Central Point Municipal Cotte ("CPMC) as follows: 1. Section 17.05.300(C)(1)(c); 2. Section 17.05.300(C)(1)(f); 3. Section 17.05.400(C)(1); 4. Section 17.05.400(C)(2); and, WItF,REAS, public. notification requirements and possible atnendments were discussed at a joint Study Session with the City Council and Planning Commission cm .August 14, 2017 to improve citizen involvement in the planning process; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the approval criteria for major zoning code text amendments per CPMC 17.10.400, including the Statewide Planning Coals, the Ccntral Point Comprehensive Plan, and the'Framportation Planning Rule as demonstrated in the Planning Department Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Exhibit A); NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. 848 does hereby forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments as scat forth in duo Staff Report dated November 7, 2017 (Exhibit "A") and the Draft Amendments CPMC 17.05.300(C) and 17.05.400(C) (Exhibit "H') attached hereto by referenced and incorporated herein. PASSFD by the; Pla niny Commission and singed by me in authentication of its passage this 7`1' day of November 2017. ATTEST: City Representative Planning Commission Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. (11/7/2017) 21 CODE AMENDMENTS - COUNCIL REVIEW PROVISIONS 22 ADMINISTRATION Ak CENTRAL DEPARTMENT POINT 140 South 3d Street . Centrad Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-7602 • www.emb-alpointoregon.gov STAFF REPORT November 7, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.05.600(h) regarding City Council review provisions. STAFF SOURCE: Chris Clayton, City Manager Sydnee Dreyer, City Attorney BACKGROUND: Recently upon Council consideration to utilize Council Review procedures, it was determined there were insufficient provisions in place with respect to: timing of call-up procedures, vote requirements for call-up procedures, hearings procedures, and overlapping appellate procedures. Council directed staff and the city attorney to research similar processes in other cities and to bring back recommended code revisions that prescribe the council review process. FISCAL IMPACTS: If Council were to exercise its review authority after an appeal was filed, the appellate fee would be refunded to the appellant. FINDINGS: The amendments are necessary to ensure the Council Review authority is well defined and the process set forth to avoid inconsistent application and/or to avoid appeal based upon failure to follow appropriate procedure. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" - Ordinance No. An Ordinance amending the Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.05.600(h) regarding City Council review provisions. Attachment "B" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 849 RECOMMENDATION: Approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 849 Recommending Approval of An Ordinance amending the Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.05.600(h) regarding City Council review provisions. 23 ATTACHMENT ti -A.. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 17.05.600(H) REGARDING CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROVISIONS RECITALS: A. Pursuant to CPMC, Chapter 1.01.040, the City Council, may from time to time make revisions to its municipal code which shall become part of the overall document and citation. B. Upon review, the staff and city attorney for the City of Central Point determined that amendment to Section 17.05.600(H) Council Review Procedures is necessary in order to more clearly define the process for Council review of land use matters. C. The amendment is intended to set forth the timing and procedure for Council review. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Chapter 17.05.600(13), City Council Review is hereby amended as set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. Codification. Provisions of this Ordinance shall be incorporated in the City Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "code", "article", "section", "chapter" or another word, and the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered, or re -lettered, provided however that any Whereas clauses and boilerplate provisions (i.e. Recitals A -C) need not be codified and the City Recorder is authorized to correct any cross-references and any typographical errors. SECTION 3. Effective Date. The Central Point City Charter states that an ordinance enacted by the Council shall take effect on the thirtieth day after its enactment. The effective date of this ordinance will be the thirtieth day after the second reading. PASSED by the Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this _ day of October 2017. ATTEST: City Recorder 24 Mayor Hank Williams EXHIBIT "A" TO ORDINANCE AMENDED CITY COUNCIL REVIEW PROVISIONS New language indicated in bold. Deleted language indicated in sU it euglr. 17.05.600 General procedural provisions. H. City Council Review. 1. Authority. Whether or not an appeal is filed, pursuant to Section 17.05.550, Tthe city council shall, by majority vete, have the authority to call up any Type 11 or Type I[] application for review upon a finding that errors of law were made and/or there was not substantial evidence to support the decision. 2. Procedures: a. A summary of Type 11 and Type II[ decisions shall be forwarded by mail or electronic mal to the City Council as an information item by the Planning Director at the time the decision is mailed to the applicant b. Review under this Section shall be initiated by the City Council before the adjournment of the first regular City Council meeting, following the date the City Council receives notification of the decision. c. Any member of the City Council or the Mayor may make a motion to review the Type It or Type IIl decision which shall require majority of the Council present to approve. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Council member or the Mayor is prohibited from initiating or voting upon the motion if such individual has a conflict of interest or has participated in the proceedings below in his/her individual capacity. d. Unless subsequently discontinued by majority vote, City Council review pursuant to this section shall supersede and replace any appeal filed under Section 17.05.550. The appellant(s) of any appeal filed before a City Council call for review shall receive a full refund of the filing fee. 25 e. The City Recorder shall set the hearing date for the next regularly scheduled Council meeting, that falls not less than fourteen (14) days atter the date the Council approves the motion to review the application. E City Council review shall be on the record which means that Council review is limited to the application materials, evidence, documentation, and specific issues raised in the initial proceedings and participation shall be limited to the applicant or owner of the subject property and any person who participated in the proceeding by submitting timely written and/or oral comments on the record prior to the decision. g. The notice, hearing and decision procedures for a City Council review shall follow the provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code for appeals. h. The decision of the City Council upon review shall become final on the date when written notice of the decision is mailed to persons entitled to notice of the decision. Any further appeal shall be to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals. 26 ATTACHMENT" " PLANNING COWMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 849 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO TITLE 17 ZONING FILE NO. 17003 Applicant: City of Central Point WHEREAS, on November 7, 2017 the Planning Commission, at a duly scheduled public hearing, considered a minor amendment to Chapter 17 Zoning of the Central Point Municipal Code ("CPMC."j as follows, and as specifically identified in Attachment "A — Staff Report dated Novamber7, 2017: 1. Section l 7.05.600 (11) - General Procedural Provisioms. City Councit Review in the Central Point Municipal Code, and WHEREAS, it is the finding oft he 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. 849, does hereby forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the amendments as set forth in the Staff Report dated Novemb" 7, 2017 attached hereto by refcrene:c as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7th day of November 2017. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Represftative Approved by me this 7s' day of November 2017, Planning Commission Resolution No. 849 (10-07-2017) 27