HomeMy WebLinkAboutFebruary 7, 2017 PC PacketA
C
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
February 7, 2017- 6:00p.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 December 6, 2016 meeting minutes.
VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VII. BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing for Consideration ofResolution No. 840 Recommending
Approval of an Ordinance to amend Chapter 17.05 —Applications and
Development Review Procedures to clarify procedures for appeal of Type I I and
Type III decisions. (File No. 16025) Applicant: City of Central Point
B. Public Hearing for Consideration of a Floodplain Development Permit
Application/No-Rise Certification for construction of the Twin Creeks Railroad
Crossing and related improvements within the Griffin Creek regulatory floodway
(File No. FP -16002). Applicant: City of Central Point.
VIII. DISCUSSION
A. Housing Element Update
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
X. MISCELLANEOUS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
City of CentralPoint Planning
Commission Minutes
December&, 2016
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:OOP.M.
D. ROLLCALL
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 P18.1111er, Molly Bradley, Community Planner, and Karin
Skelton. Planning Secretary_
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE
DL CORRESPONDENCE
None
IV. MIN1.J'IDi
Rob Hernandez noted that page 2 of the minutes indicated he abstaint:d 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 p6Ssed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
None
VI. BUSINESS
A. Consideration of Raobdion No.836 RecoiiUIIeadiq Approval of a Type IV
Legidative Comprebenave Plan Amendment to Update the La.ad Ute Elemeat and to
Modify the Central Point Comprebeaaive Plaa Map from Tourist aad Of'Ike Profeuiooal to
Thorougbfare Conunerdal on 4.87 attn at 4901 Biddle Road. The aite IDdelltified on the
.Jackton County $ 0kRW!UIMap 10781W OIC, Tax Lot 1102.(FDe No. 161%1).App6eant:
Rope Valley Mierodevketfl'ail Lilbt Propertiea, LLC Agent: Jay Harland, CSA Plannillg
Ltd.
Tom Hwnphrey 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. I n
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
Page2
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 Cotmeil
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.
n the Economic Element of the Plan. Computer and electronic product manufa.ctwing are
identified as a tnmding Oregon industry. The Thoroughfare Commercial land use designation
will accommodate the siting of Rogue Valley MicrodevKes on the Pine Street corridor.Mr.
Humphrey stated that there were four issues relevant to this application:
1. Comprehelllive Plan Comp61 nce. Approval of the proposed amendment must be
found consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan. I f 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 SurroWKtiq LaDd Usa aacl 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 d&mignatedTourist and Office Profeuioual.
3. ZoND& Map and Zoning Code Tm Amendmeata, CPMC Cllapter 17.10.This
municipal code section provides standards and procedures for major and minor
ammdmeots to the Central Point city zoning map. I n this case, the zone change
(map) proposal was initiated by the applicant for one tax lot and the 8£tion is
considered DEP QU-1amendment and a Type M process. The amendment should be
based on the following criteria; l) its consistency with the City's Comprehensive
Plan,. 2) findings demonstrating that adequate public services and tran8portation
networks will serve the property and 3) compliance with the State's Transportation
Planning Rule.
4. Tnnspo.rtation Plaaaiag Rule (TPR) Comphaace, OAR 660-011-0060. 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 Plamring 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 curtlmt location
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page3
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 compabble.
Additionally he suggested that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council direct
staff to amend the Land Use Element during fiscal Year2017-2019 to include updates to
goals and policies for Coounercial 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 redesignatioo of approximately 5 acres south of Biddle Road between Hamrick and
Table Rock roads from tourist and office Professional to Tborooghfare 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 Cowlcil direct staff to amend the
Land Use Element during Fiscal Year2017-2019 to include updates to goals and policies for
comJ:Ileicial Land Uses. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. AD Commissioners said "aye".
Motion passed.
B.Consideration of a Zone (map) Chaage applicatioo from Tourltt and Off'tce
Profe 11 ioul (C-4) to Tllorouchfare COI l Imerdal (C -S) for a 4.17 acre puallocated at 4901
Biddle Road. Tile Proj ed Site it idelllifted on the Jaeksoa Collllty AleesioIl"i map as 37S
1W O1C, Tu Lot 182.Appticant: Rope Valley Mic:rodmcetfl'ail LiPt Propertiel, LLC.
Agent:Jay Hulaad, CSA Plana.i.g.
Mr. Humphrey stated that the applicant bas requested a minor roue map amendment from C-
4 to C-5 with the intent of developing a new tax lot for a Corporate Headquarters ami 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:
Zonio& Map and Zoning Code Tnt Ameadmentl, CPMC Chapter 17.10. This
municipal code section provides standards and procedures for major and minor
amendments to the Central Point zoning map. I n 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 Ill procedures.
The amendment should be based on the following criteria; l) its consistency with the
City's Comprehensive Plan, 2) findings demonstrating that adequate public services
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page4
and transportation networ.Ul will serve the property and 3) compliance with the
State's Transportation Planning Rule.
2. 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 witlt SUITouadiDg Land UteS aad ZoDiac- The subject property is
contiguous to lands zoned C -S, Thoroughfare Commc:reial 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. Tnasportation Planning Rule (TPR) Compliaac:e, OAR 668.-012.0060. Criteria
forTPR compliance is addressed In the traffic findings (Attachment B)
dcmonstniting adequate public services and transportation networks.
M r. 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 cu.m:ntly under
construction and suggested that it would be more appropriate to reference the map and tax lot
for the subject parcel.
r y:1IYA91210019:1►191C
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 REARING CLOSED
Mr. Humphrey reconunended approval with the condition that approval of the zone change
be contiJl&ent upon approval ofthe 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
37S2WOIC 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:
Eliubeth Powell, yes. Motion passed.
C. Consideration of a Conditional Ute Perllllt to allow Roane VaBey Microdevicn
to operate a ,1i&ht maaufacturing faciUty whkh will serve u their corporate
headquarters buildiq. Rope VaHey Microdevices proposes to operate in the
Thoroozhfare Commercial (C-5) zooiq dbtrict. The project site is located at 4901
Biddle Rd., and is defined on the Jackson County Assessor's map ED7S 1W OIC, Tu
Lot80Z
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Pages
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 GS 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 pemrit is also
required to address reduction inthemaxinwm 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 circulaiion.
Access to the site wiU be from the private rdail street that intersects with Biddle Road through a
rigbt-' nl right -out configuration and from another private access road to the south of the project
site. Tlt.e facility WIII receive multiple growui deliveries daily as well 115 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 regu]ar bi-monthly meetiugs.
The Property abuts C-4 property on the west. M-1 property on the south. C-5 property on the eaat
and C-4 lands to the north . She said that there arc 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 ftndings, it is noted that at their cmrcnt facility in Medford, Microdevices conducts
wcc:kly 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
Page6
health and safety requirements. The only change will be compliance inspection from Fire District
No.3 instead of the Medford Fire Department.
n accordance with procedure, this application was noticed to surrounding property owners within
100 feet of the project site to allow them an opportunity to continent. 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 factlity. The Applicant is
requesting a reduction to the off-street parking standards as part of the Cooditiooal Use Permit
approval, asserting that strict application of the code wouJd 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 conditiooal use permit i n 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 fiE manual and the Centml Point M"Lmicipal Code, and is therefore
coosidered acceptable.
3) Off -Street Load i I Ig Bertlla: The Applicant bas 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 Requh-ements, 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 faciJity, to be accessed from the private retail street. This eastcdy 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, io as to avoid obstructing surrounding roads or access
drives. Semi -trailer truck deliveries wi U 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. I n 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 bad 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 restriclion
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 of37S2WO1C, Tax Lot 802 from C-4 to C-5.
2. The eastern loading berth located on the retail street sball not be used for deliveries
during the hours of7:30 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. Conditi00B as listed in the letter from the Aiiport, 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
Page8
Rob Hernandez made a motion to approve Resolution no. 838 Consideration of Conditional
Use Permit to allow Rogue Valley Microdevices to operate a light manufacturing facility
which will serve as their cotpOmte 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.
7:50p.m. meeting resumed
D. Coaslderation of a Site Plan and Ardt.iteetunl Review applkatfon for the
construction of a 43,000 square foot corporate headgWirten ud light fabrieatf011
facility for Rogue Valley Mkrodeviea. Rope Valley Microdeviees proposes to
operate in the Thoroughfare Commercial (C.S} zoning district. T_.e project site Is
located at 4901Biddle Rd., and is defined oa the Jackson Couaty As e RiLmap EIEI
37S 2W OtC, Tax Lot 101.
Stephanie Holtey briefly reviewed for the Planning Commission the description of the
project, the necessity for the Compn:heosive Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Conditional
Usc Permit. She informed the Cotnmissioners 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 fa de and main pedestrian entry front Biddle Road and the main
parking area, which has 35 spaces. Access at this location is ftum 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 modem 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 mitipte 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.
1. Lepl Lot 6)AANTEAtthe time of this review, the 2.24 acre project site bas 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
December6, 2016
Page9
resolved with a condition of approval requiring final plat completion prior to building
permit issuance.
2. Parking Adjustment. Per Table 17.64.028 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 lot south of the building
resulting in 45 spaces. Provision of 4546 spaces does not
meet the minimwnlmaximum 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 parlcing spaces needed for the proposed use. The Applicant's Findings
state that amaximum of35 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.
Off- 8treet P n ki I I g Laudsa.pe Requirements. Proposed off-street parldng lot
landscaping improvements are not consistent with the requirements for interior
islands and tree plantingper CPMC 17.75.039(0)(2):
a. Interior lslauds. CPMC 17.75.039(0)(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 bas 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(0)(2).
Planning Commission Minutes
December6, 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 fae 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 pad i ng 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 arc 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(GX2)(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 -S; and approval of a Conditional
Use Permit Failure to obtain any of the required land use approvals shall result in
the denial ofthis site plan and arclritectural 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(0)(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 Centrall:'oint 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 PoweJl left the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Jay Harland requested that the Planning Commission allow construction to E Eton the
project prior to i l lune of Certificate of Occupancy rather tun prior to 11 suance of
Building Permits. He dated that bil concern was that the final plat might oot be recorded
Planning Commission Minutes
December 6, 2016
Page II
before constructioa needed to begin. He also indicated that in Attachment 7", the
comment from Jack.11on county Roads, numbers 8, 9 and 10 were not applicable to this
application. The Commissioners reviewed the attachment and ap-eed.
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 Architectmal Review application for the construction of a 43,000 square foot
coip0rate 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 OIC, Tax Lot 802. Kay Harri90D seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes;.Rob Hernandez, yes; Tom Van Vootbees, yes;
Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed.
VII. DISCUSSION
VIU. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
None
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn. Kay Harrison seconded. All said "aye". Meeting was
adjournw at 8:20p.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
Publk Hoad g for Consideration of Resolution No- W Retonin ndltrg
Approval of an Ordinance to Amend Chapter 17.05 — Applicz0ons and
Development ftevlew PrvcedUres to daelfy procedures for aural of Type fl and
Type ill dec(Worss.
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 16025
AO%L
CENTRAL
POINT
STAFF REPORT
February 7, 2017
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director
Public Hearing to consider Resolution No. 840 forwarding a recommendation to the City Council regarding amendments
to Chapter 17.05 Applications and Development Permit Review Procedures, adding 17.05550 Appeal Procedure. Type II
and Type i I I Decisions; Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
n 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 i I Iland use decisions. Type
IT decisions are those made by the Community Development Director and appealable to the Planning Commission. Type
i I I 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
and costly legal fees. The proposed amendments are intended to reduce if not eliminate the issues cited above.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" —Proposed Zoning Code Amendments
Attachment ..B , — Resolution No. 840
ACTION:
Consider proposed zoning amendments and 1) forward the ordinance to the Council for approval, 2) make revisions and
forward the ordinance to the Council or 3) deny the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. 840 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the proposed
zoning code amendments.
Page 1 of 1
Chapter 17.05
APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT REVIEW PROCEDURES
Sections:
17.05.100 Purpose and applicability of review procedures.
17.05.200 Typeiprocedure.
17.05.3 00 Type II procedure.
17.05.400 Type i I I procedure.
17.05.500 Type IV procedure.
17.05.550 Appeal Procedure.
17.05.600 General procedural piovisions.
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, II, Ill, 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 11 decision is
treated as a Type III procedure, except that the soope efthe hearing is limiteEl as provided ifl
s eseetieB (B)(3) efthis seetien, lifla is oonsidered the eiey's final deei-sien. appeal is to the
Planning Commission which i the final decision of the city.
3. Type III. Type i I (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 1 I I decisions are
based on special studies or other information which will serve as the factual basis to support the
decision. Type Ili 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 N 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
PROCEDURAL APPLICABLE
APPROVING
120 -
LAND DEVELOPMENT
TYPE REGULATIONS
AUTHORITY
DAY
PERMIT*
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
Type III
Chapter 17.76
Planning
Yes
Conditional Use Permit
Commission
Conversion Plan
Type II
Chapter 16.32
Director
Yes
Extensions
Type I
Section
Director
Yes
Type I Procedures
17.05.2QQ(G)
Type II
Section
Director
Yes
Type II Procedures
17.05.30Q(H)
Home Occupation
Type I
Section 17.60.190
Director
Yes
Land Division
Tentative Plan, Partition
Type II Chapter 16.36
Director
Yes
Type III Chapter 16.10
Planning
Yes
Tentative Plan, Subdivision
Commission
Final Plat
Type I Chapter 16.12
Director
No
Property Line
Type I
Chapter 16.10 Director
Yes
Adjustment/Consolidation
Modification of Approval
Type III
Section 17.09.300
Planning
Yes
Major
Commission
Minor
Type II
Section 17,09.400
Director
Yes
Type III
Section 17.56.040
Planning
No
Nonconforming Use Designation
Commission
TABLE 17.05.1
PROCEDURAI
APPLICABLE
APPROVING
120 -
LAND DEVELOPMENT
TYPE
REGULATIONS
AUTHORITY
DAY
PERMIT*
RULE
Type III
Chapter 17.68
Planning
Yes
Planned Unit Development
Commission
Right -of -Way Vacation
TypemiV
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 11
Chapter 12.36
Director
Yes
Variance
Class A
Type II
Section 17.13.300
Director
Yes
Type III
Planning
Yes
Section 17.13.400
C1ass13
Commission
Type III
Section 17.13.500
Planning
Yes
Class C
Commission
Zoning Map and Zoning and
Land Division Code Text
Amendments
Minor
Type III
Chapter 17.10
City Council
Yes
Major
Type IV
Chapter 17.10
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 17.05.60Q(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 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 circmnstances, a Type IT application
maybe 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 Ill
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.
Befure makiRg a Ty!'Je II eeeisieR, the eemmtmity ee¥elopmeat Elireetor or Elesigaee shall mail
aetiee to:
a. All o'wflers of reoore of real property witltiB a'R"HBimliffi of oae e C*et of the eJEterior
b000daries of the sabjeet site;
e. All eity reeogaized Aeighborheoe grotJI)S or assoeiatiOA:S WHoSe eo\itlelaries iaeluee tho site;
e. My perseR wfio submits a wri eR feCJI:Iest to teeei[A a aet:ioe; 8ft6
th 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 boundariof 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 an tice; 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 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 a pending TYBe II IIP IP lv�Rdoeisioo application shall include:
a. PFOvide a fot:trteee dll)' period for Sttbmiltiag y,'fittefl eet'fifftetWJ eefore a deeisieA is maele eft
the permit;
a. The street address or other easily understood reference to the site;
b. best The relevant approval criteria by name and number of code sections;
c. State -The place, date and time the comments are due, and the person to whom the comments
should be addressed;
d. lnolude tke name and telepoone AUflleer of a e9fltaet person regardiAg tke aEI iftiskative
deeisiea;
d. A description of the proposal and identifyication the specific permits or approvals requested;
e. A statement of the -issues lhat may provide the ba is for an appeal to the Land Use Board of
Appeals must be raised i n writing and with sufficient specificity to enable the decision maker to
respond to the issue;
f. he name and phone number of a city contact person
g. A brief summary of the local decision making process for the decision being made;
g. State that, if My persea fails to address tke rele¥aat approval eriteria with eseugh detail tRey
may aet be able to appeal to the land I:ISe eoard of appeals or eir&Wt ee\frt oA that issue aad that
only eommeffis oa rele¥ftftt appi'8Yel efiteria are eeasidereEI fOle>I I Iftt eviEieaee;
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
eyid ce may be obtained at a reasonable cost from the city;
i. State A statement that, after the comment period closes, the community development director
or designee shall issue a Type I i 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 S:OOp.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 ofDecision.
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;
aBd
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 all eFSeas estitlee to aetiee 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.
a]
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.
G. A}'peal. A'fyfJe II deeisiea may be appealed to the plftftftiag eommissioo as fellows:
1. Who May Appeal. The fell&wing people ha- le legal standing to appeal a Type IT
decision:
a. The applicant er eVffler of the st ajeot property;
b. Rny persoa who NBs eatitled to writteR aotice oHhe Type fl deeisiea;
e. Afly ether person who participated i:n the preoeetiing by sebmitting written
eommest:s.
2. Appeal Fi:liflg Proeedere.
a. Notiee efAppea:LAfty persofl with staadiflgto lfliileel,as pro•l'ideElifl Stthseetioa
(G)(1) eft:his seetion, may appeal a Type II d:eeisiea by filing a BOtiee of appeal
aooerdiflg to the feUewisg proeederes;
1:>. Time fer Filiag. A notiee of appeal shall be filed with the oon:tm\J:Bity dtwelopment
direeter or desigBee \"lithia teA days from the date the Rotiee of decision was mai: led -
e. Ceatent ofNotiee of Appeal. The notiee of appeal shall eeaaun:
i Afl identification eftI le deei&ion eeiRg appealed, ffieluding the date oftlte
deeisioo;
i i . A statement demonstrating the person fili:Bg the notice of appeal has staading
to aweal;
iii. A statement eMplaiaing the speeifie isSlaes beiag raised en appea:Jt
iv. If the appellaat is not the applieant, a statemeat aemenstfating that the appeal
issues .,vere raised duriRg the eofflfftent period; and
v. The applieable filing fee.
3. Seepe of Afpeah- 'Fhe appeal of a Type II decision by a peFSoB with standiRg shall be a
heariag before the plar.:litg eemmissiea. The appeal shall be limited to the application
10
materials, eYideaoe allG other dooumentation, and speeifie issues raised in the T)'1le I1
revievl .
pecz/ Proeedures. TweM netiee, hearing.fl£OGedures, and deeisien preeess sha! I Ile
tlfle&-f&rall Type U ap(3eals:--as-pFGYideEI in Seetl7.05.400(C}-througlrfBr.
5. Final-t;)e.e.i.si M+He deeision:-e:f-thepl&P'ling eofl:l£&issien reganli:eg en appeal of a Type
II deeision is the final deeisioa of the eity.
HG. 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 17.05.600(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.
ii
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 shad 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.
I. Mailed Notice. The city shall mail the notice of the Type i I I 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. Fet=-appeals, the appellaat allEI all perseas w.fte proviEieEi testimeay in the erigiael Eleeisiea;
and
"fiH... 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 ofNotice. Notice of a Type Ill hearing shall be mailed per subsection C ofthis 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;
L 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 ofthe 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 ofthe hearing or record for a limitee land sse graated Type III Application
pursuant to this subsection D is subject to the limitations of ORS 227.178 ("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 ]east seven days
after the record is closed to all other parties to submit final written argwnents 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 shall not be subject to the limitations ofORS 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; staffFefarts).
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 III quasi-judicial hearing are entitled to an impartial review authority as
free from potential conflicts of interest and prehearing ex parte contacts (see subsection (D)(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 according]y.
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:
i. 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 corrununication 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 (0)(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 aType TII 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 fiftftl written effief 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. A fiHal writtea: erder 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 eley
eoancil 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.
F: -A -p I1Hieeistea-fft8Eie by the p ing oomm-issi&A maybe awealeEJ..te- y
00\ffieiJ as follows:
1. Who May Apj Jeal. The fellewing peeple HB'Ie legal standing to apf>Oill a Twe M
deeisien:
fl-:--:fh:e &fPHCB:Bt or owacr of die subject preperty;
b. Any person who was entitleti to wria Rotiec of the TYf>e I H deeisioa;
e. Any other persoR who participated In die prooeeding by s : bffl:ittieg written
eemmeats.
2. Appeal Filing Procedure.
B:: Notice ofAJ>peal. Aay person with standieg to appeal, as pro • Iideti in subsection
(F)(1) of this section, may appeal a Type m deeisiea by filieg a eotiee of appeal
aeeordiag to e feUowiflg proeedw'es;
b. Time fer FiliRg. A notice of appeal shall be filed ..vith the eomm1:laity de:velopment
direetof or designee willtifl tea day:; of thtliite the aotiee of deeisioa was mailed;
c. Coatent ofNotiee ofApf!eal. The notice efaPf;Jeal shall eefltai:n:
i. }ai identifieatiefl ofthe decisioH: beiag apfealed, Eneludittg the date of the
deeisiea;
ii. A statemeR:t demoastrati:Rg the persoa filing the notice of appeal has standing
to aflpeal;
iii. A statement explaiai:ng the specific issees being raised Ofl appeal;
18
iv. If the appell8flt is .aot tee applicant, a statement demonstrating that the appeal
issues were raised during the eemment period; and
Y.The applicable filing fee.
3. Soope ofApJ'eal. The appeal-et:a Type UI decision is limited to the issues and evideRee
Bine record before the Rearing body.
4. Appeal Procedures.'fwe III .aotioe hea:fi:Rg Broeedure emd deoisioB J'FOcess shal-1 also be
Ned for all Type III appeals, as provided in subsections C through E of this seotioB;
5. Final OesisioR. The decision of the city council regarding an appeal of a Type Ill
decision is tJ:te iiRal decision of the city.
G.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. I n 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 17.09.400;
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 §1(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §1(part), 2006).
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).
19
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.
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:
L 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 commwlity development director or designee shall:
20
i. For each mailing of notice, file an affidavit of mailing in the record as provided by subsection
(D)(2)(a) ofthis 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) ofthis 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 ofNotices. 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).
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.
21
b. No person shall address the commission or the council without:
. 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
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 Fefere ee in Table 17.05.1.
H. Approval Process and Authority.
1. The citizens advisory committee and planning commission shall:
22
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 conunittee 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
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.
23
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 ofthe qualified members of the city council present is required to decide
any motion made on the proposal.
J. Notice ofDecision. 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.
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
24
f. A copy of the notices that were given as required by this chapter. (Ord. 1989 §1(part), 2014;
Ord. 1874 § 1(part), 2006).
17.05.550 Appeal procedure —Type II and Type III decisions.
A. Appeal. Type IT decisions may be appealed to the planning commission. Type Ill decisions
may be appealed to the City Council. All such appeals are subject to the following:
1. Who May Appeal. The following people have legal standing to appeal a Type 11 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. Not ice 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;
i i. A statement demonstrating the person tiling the notice of appeal has standing to appeal;
iii. A statement explaining the specific issues being raised on appeal. Ifthe 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. Ifthe 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. The applicable filing fee.
25
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 oflaw 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
appellant and other parties who appeared In the initial proceedings may participate in the appeal
hearing. AppeUant shall make the initial presentation and shall be allowed rebuttal. Each
participant in tho appeal hearing shall present to the planning commission or city council,
respectively, those portion 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 bearing before the planning commission for Type
U appeal and city council for Type I I I appeals. The community development director or his
designee shall notify the appellant and all parties who appeared in the initial proceeding 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
DG. 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 authority, said hearings body shall, 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 I I decision is the final decision of the city. The decision
of the city council regarding an appeal of a Type I I I decision is the final decision of the city.
E9. Withdrawal of an Appeal.
26
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.
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.
17.05.600 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 ofORS
227.178.
B. Time Computation. In computing any period oftime 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.
1. 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:
27
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. Identity 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 cooununity 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.
b. Any person authorized to submit an application for approval may be 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 ofland use or
development permit (e.g., Type II and III) for the same one or more parcels ofland, the
proceedings may, at the option of the applicant, be consolidated for review and decision.
28
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:
L 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
i i i. 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
retwned to the applicant:
i. 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
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.
i i . 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
O
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 (DX3)(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 forreview and comment 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
commwrity 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
alternate 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 ofthe tollowing actions,
at the choice of the applicant:
30
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 EHBendmeat
significant change to allow the City to reprocess the revised application. If the applicant does not
consent, the city -applicant may shall -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
aeeaffiiagly; 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 pHt esal proposed decision:
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
J7.05.300(C) (Type II), 17.05.400 C) {Type III), or 17.05.50 D) (Type IV);
31
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 ofthe 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 aU supporting infonnation, 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, infonnation or documentation which was eeB:Sieefed by the desision makef{s) 6ft-the
11fPiieetion 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.
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 Bl)ar•d of Appeals, the Land Cunst:rvatiun 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
32
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 colmcil 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 17. 5.400(F), 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 February 7, 2017 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 February 7, 2017):
1. Section 17.05 Applications and Development Permit Review Procedures,
2. Section 17.05.550 Appeal Procedure —Type nand Type i I I 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 February 7, 2017 attached hereto by
reference as Exhibit "A., and incorporated bereiiL
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by mein authentication of its passage this 7th day
of February 2017.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 7th day ofFebruary 2017.
Planning Conunission Resolution No. 840 (2-07-2017)
34
Pubffc Headng for Consideration of a FbodptaIn Development Permit Appllcadon/N"ise Cer" ieawn
for construction of the Twin Creeks ]RaiIfoad Crossing and related improvements within the Geiffkiin Cmek
reguiafiory fiaoflway
35
M
City of Central Point, Ore on CENTRAL
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 POINT
www. centralpoj ntorelQn.lQv
STAFF REPORT
February 7, 2017
AGENDAITEM: FileNo. FP -16002
Community Development
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Community Development Director
Consideration of a floodplain development application to construct Highway 99 roadway
improvements within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and regulatory floodway for
Griffin Creek. Applicant: City of Central Point (Matt Samitore).
STAFF SOURCE:
Stephanie Holley, CFM, Community Planner
BACKGROUND
The City of Central Point ("Applicant') requests floodplain development approval to construct
roadway improvements within the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and regulatory floodway
for Griffin Creek (Attachment "A"). The proposed improvements are needed to complete
construction of the Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing project, which is identified in the Twin
Creeks Transit Oriented Development (TOO) Master Plan ("Master Plan") and the City s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP)(Project No. 202) as a vital link between Twin Creeks and
development east of the CORP .railroad. To be approved, the Applicant must demonstrate that the
proposed improvements do not aggravate flood conditions.
Project Description:
The Twin Creeks Rail Crossing project will extend Twin Creeks Crossing easterly across the
CORP railroad tracks to create a new, signalized "T" intersection with Highway 99. Additional
project improvements include the following:
❑ A new at -grade railroad crossing;
❑ Sidewalk, curb and gutter construction along the east side of Highway 99 to the north and
south of the new intersection; and,
pavement reconstruction raising the grade along Highway 99 to match the grade
elevation at the intersection.
A portion of the pavement reconstruction and sidewalk improvements, including curb and gutter,
are within the Griffin Creek SFHA and regulatory floodway. In accordance with CPMC
8.24.200(A), the Applicant submitted a No -Rise Analysis and certification, which evaluates the
effective and proposed flood conditions based on construction of the Twin Creeks Railroad
Crossing project. According to the No -Rise documentation, the minor grade increases do not
increase flood elevations consistent with the City's no -rise standard.
ISSUES
There are no issues associated with this application.
36
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The proposed floodplain development has been evaluated against the Central Point Municipal
Code (CPMC) Chapter 8.24 requirements for Flood Damage Prevention and found to comply as
evidenced by the Applicant's No -Rise documentation (Attachment "B").
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
No conditions of approval are recommended.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment "A" —Floodway Development Project Location Map
Attachment "B" —No Rise Certificate and Analysjs (Note: Appendices are included in the
record and available for review upon request)
Attachment "C" -Floodplain Development Application, dated December 14,2016
Attachment "D" -Resolution No. 841
ACTION
Consider the floodplain development application and 1) approve; 2) approve with
modifications; or 3) deny the application.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution No. 841 Approving a floodplain development application to construct
Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing improvements within the regulatory floodway for Griffin
Creek.
37
ATTACHMENT "A"
Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing
Project Location & Flood Map
i�'1`Focii �dri
RANGE2'1/ES INCO fOWf'tSHHP WWQF fYf
8 MAN
315OUIH.R 2Yo'£$T
r+ru
•
tai
,r
- Ravenwul
"" r
mconslruClkln
a! 'r,ti�
` l . 1 f ' �`•
JrtLrf C flwll!
Eklfll lllfifi fnilrW if -r /` +
mr6 and guttHl
a f1v,
- '
AIRFA T•y; � _
" it 1.
�,,
/'41•'x'7
r
1�� wrI
`I i,- n c. _ •,, ..
halm efwlro'
ftNO�
Jwcluow Cowry
141M4tpsratd
Arem
_ aid � ��� • �r JJ
38
M
►fOw/'
r+ru
•
tai
Appmx IIMIIS of
- Ravenwul
"" r
mconslruClkln
-
a Ali r
� 71tl ate�//
Eklfll lllfifi fnilrW if -r /` +
mr6 and guttHl
a f1v,
38
M
{fNFf
r..o....cwrti
:CAI,
CW A
N
Cshi rrd"1
"
41
a Ali r
PrOfh+r 0a 1.
�7}iy � _
U
r ,
176$_2327
ftNO�
Jwcluow Cowry
141M4tpsratd
Arem
-
,h a
41509
RI A S£D TO
4
38
:CAI,
176$_2327
ftNO�
RI A S£D TO
4
IIEFLECTOMR
Ef fECIIVE:
0iF`•
>.>...._.., ®1011
*If
TV LIN If,JII:RNAIIONAI.
ATTACHMENT "B"
Twin Creeks Rail Crossing
Floodway Impact Hydraulic Step
Analysis
September 2016 Revision 1
_ , _ „_for.
City of Central Point
c/o ODOT Region 3
Prepared and Submitted by:
VVLININTERNATIONAL
engilleels , plunnels I scien!ists
39
TYUNINI H11\Jr'\110f\1A1
1- 11 11 1 'th
Purpose and Need
The City of Central point wishes to extend the Twin Creek Crossing form its current terminus west of the
CORP railroad tracks to aT intersection with the Rogue Valley Highway (HWY 063). The project requires
the grade of Hwy 063 be raised to match elevation at the intersection location,and will develop sidewalk
along the east side of the highway in both directions to connect with approaching sidewalk termini.
The project re -constructs a portion of the highway over the twin box culvert passing Griffin Creek. Per the
FEMA flood insurance map this development will be within the floodway where Griffin Creek overtops this
culvert in the 1%probability (100year) flood event.
IZ4U) + ,
/Prvllle �`N1.
BlStline/i
Exlmuled s4swaik
curb and gutter
PWOO '
Bawlne
1 AMP'URI P,w\NCE
f7l.OM 6LgICl1AME
CONFAWEO
W STRUCTuPE
Affected
'Floodplain
- Bepraber14M - - --
.o� y 1 f.., 1 3e �i1l::r 11rw4
R. N! A
�M
a us us w •�
� rORi�t R�OOUlp.Kf�O[W
MAfiPIC91A1f1.�F0�1
178$.2327
read .. .... .,. ....
REVISED TO
REFLECT LOMR
EFFECTIVE:
) MR(ECRI Area Affected Hwy 063 Grim l Creek Culvert
Analysis Procedures
loco
_'ff.-III
UODC:llllf
- \lo-liwt
Nlffn011
The location under consideration is currently in public comment for map revision to capture modifications
to the intersecting Jackson Creek drainage west of the CORP Railroad alignment. At flood stage Griffin
creek overtops the bank to the north and flow is diverted northerly to the Jackson Creek basin. The
proximity of this flow modification to the project site, illustrated above,leads to the step backwater
analysis performed for that revision as the most current model capturing these already constructed
modifications within the drainage system. Therefore, the current published insurance study,Number
Twin CreekLail Crouina Projed
Floodplain lmpacr Analysis
(Jun" 29, 20 16)
40
—A q e 1
TV L I N IN fEH N L\fiONAL
41029V000A effective May 3, 2011, is outdated, and the pending study analysis, to be fully effective
September 2016 has been used as the basis for this no rise comparison.
The comparison analysis for this no effect documentation was acquired directly from the consultant
performing the letter of Map Revision (LOMR), which fully re -modeled the drainage basin including Griffin
Creek. Therefore the cross sections compared do not exactly align with the 2011 effective insurance study,
and therefore no annotation of the tabular values in that study can be provided. Fortunately, the work in
question is centered about the culvert feature which provides cross sections at that location and can be
aligned with all previous flood studies providing a basis of comparison and has established confidence in the
existing conditions analysis.
The procedure uses the IOMR HEC RAS steady flow step backwater analysis model, expected to be effective
September 2016 and as developed originally by Northwest Hydraulics Consultants under contract to the
City of Central Point. No new cross section locations were developed for the proposed conditions analysis,
hence no calibration of the existing conditions is needed. All modifications have been to the deck
elevations to the existing culvert section modelled at River Sta 58+84. The culvert upstream and
downstream deck elevations were modified to reflect the proposed road profile above the culvert location
and compare to the previous existing condition.
Griffin Creek Culvert Existi"1 Road SurfKe
41
•r � ..iii
Tu" C.rrk. lril P..r.dra Rrfrel P n e. l 4
Floodplain Impact Analysis (June29, 2016)
42
TYLINII\J II=HI'J/>TIONAI
--- .------- w'l "l
Griffin Crftk Culvert Proposed Road Surface
Notably minimal chanaes in roadway elevation occur,the primary modification to the proposed surface is
the inclusion of drainage curb along both side of the highway. To complete the no rise the curb line
required lowering from typical design height within the limits of the culvert passins below.
The modifications to the culvert section were prepared using the Bentley InRoads design package to model
the location of the roadway gutter line. The gutter Ilne establishes the parallelelevation and the various
features of the new roadway are Installed to re -define the roadway surface for the proposed conditions
model.
Specifically the upstream culvert roadway was modified to capture drainage curb along the west eqe of
the roadwiiV to the anticipated limits of the project. The existins points in the cross section were measured
and modified to reflect the higher elevation. Downstream culvert roadway surface was similarly modified
but extended to the limits of the cross section to reflect the full length installation of new sidewalk curb
end I Htter aloes the ee:tt tide of the hishwey. In that clft the elevations recorded ate the 11 eatest of the -
back of sidewalk (gutter line + 8 Inches) or the centerline of the roadway crown. The location to the limits
of the culvert required lowering of the sidewalk, similar to a driveway curb-cut,to prevent any calculated
rise at the sections examined.
Additional cross section points at the road surface were added to both upstream and downstream sections
to capture abrupt chanses,for the curb along the west side of the highway (upstream) and for the concrete
barrier at the culvert along the east side of the highway (downstream)_
Upon completion of these modifications HEC -RAS software was eKecuted and the resultant predicted
water surface elevation differences compared at the local cross sections.
Results and Conclusions
Comparison of local cross sections:
Twin C..-.lall Ctellil!1 Praj!ct
Floodplain Impact Analysis (June 29, 2016)
43
TYLIN
X -Section
Stition
5955.071
5884 Culvert U
5884 Culvert D
5807.13
LOMR
Water Surbce 100
1256.4
1256.4
1255.6
1255.0
Proposed Surface
Water Surface 100
YT-
100yr.
Difference
1256.4
0.0
1256.4
0.0
1255.6
0.0
1254.9
-0.1
The analysis shows no rise for these four stations. Notably the rise at River Sta 58+07.13, just downstream
of the culvert is -0. lfeet reflecting a slitPubly Increased flow velocity of the overtopping flow at the
downstream culvert end.
The final conclusion is that with the proposed sidewalk curb -cut geometry there is no calculated rise within
the vicintiy of the roadway modifications.
Dlsdalmer
The analysis prepared has relied on information in support of the current LOMR being considered by FEMA
to become effective September 2016. Notably at this time it is our understanding that FEMA has accepted
the modeling and the LOMR application is currently undergoing the required public review and comment
period. While every effort has been expended to verify that this model is consistent with the results as
illustrated in the currently effective insurance study, should this LOMR not be placed into effect as
scheduled and the modelling subsequently changed it may affect the input into this analysis. With that
understanding the goal of this analysis is to verify no use to the floodway and demonstrate acceptable
localized rise for the 100 ear flood water surface due to the tanned roadwa develo ment and
regardless of any modification to the supporting analysis it is reasonable to conclude that the specific
results for this location will remain unchanced.
Twin &UTNMall Crl I llnlPralle! Paae 14
Floodplain Impact Analysis (June 29, 2016)
44
Recerved . _
Floodp0eveiopment
ACity of Central Point Floodway Encroachment Analysis
CPN NT L No -Rise Certification
PROPERTY INfORMATION
oWNEFt'SNAME City of Central Point
PRO DIIm U n ; Dumt. sUite... id,L .-ik!ilio.l0ii P.Oiiii 1lul.IiiiR —
140 South 3rd Street
Central Point sTAn Oregon nPcoO( 97502
AA0FtJv060an!Oft ..... T;pfof,.., ert IUILDIMGIM(Ot_.Idcnti11Jto<I• -had....... Adollk!n.Acunorv.Itt.)
37 2W 0308 No tax lot A! gy
A.DODWAY IENCIIOACHMINT ANALYSIS AND NO-IIIU INFORMATION
PROJEWENCIIOMINERT DESaii'TION f""""lM Ep.dllc. At ikflolM p!wn llidincM!e UP .... If- „
Raise of grade to accommodate intersection at Twin Creeks Crossing and highway 99 results
In some adjustment to highway grade through the Griffin Creek ttoodway.
Structuraleocr mentC Vies
"
Fill placement i s _ No
Quantity: 125 QWrQX. cubic yards
Material Type: Various - Cotrete. ACWS and base,ac�gregate
Mate.-ial5oura: Commercial su2plier TBD
fLAM C:OMIIIIUIII1HAHtliii0. &FWFPX/R9YM DATE ML P.OW illly✓t"M pt4w MW
5UPPOIITIN& TfCHNICALDOCUMBITATION
1. Report with analysis
2.
3.
COMMENTS: Analysis prepared from current LOMR model effective September 2016 to capbJre the most
cui'T8nt effects at this location.
OIEGON REGIST'BtiD PROfESSIONAL !NGifMER COTIFICA'IION
I certify that I am a duly rqistered professional enifneer licensed to practice in the State of Orefon. I certify that the attached
technical data supports the fact that the proposed development described herein will not Impact the 1QQ..year (1% annual chance
flood elevations, flood way atfons or floodwav widths on the affKted stream located both upstream and downstream of the
proposed development, at published or unpublished crossectlons In the FEMA Flood Insurance Study speclfted In Section B of this
No • Rise Certification.
Scott M. Nettteton P.E.
C ERTIFI!R'S NAME
TV Un International
roMPAAYNAME
8_62 S_OV Cascade Ave Suite 604 Beaverton OR 97008
A06A! C" STATI lipcollf
Expires 12/31/2016
140 South Yd Street I Central Point. OR 97502 1 (541) 664-7602
www.centrilllpolntoreaon.gov
45
ATTACHMENT "C"
Upolted 1/13/2012
46
OFFICE USE ONLY
floodplain Development Permit
CEPOINTT RAL Application
1 EC 1 No -Rise !CLOMR Attachments
'Denied
i Approved Subject toCOA
Instructions: Complete all unhiahliahted sections of this application form to provide a complete understanding of your development proposal.
Highlighted sections are for office use only. Please incude attachments to help clarify your proposal. These may Include a site plan,elevation
drawings, detailed drawings and photographs. Refer to the application checklist for a complete list of required supporting documentation.
Incomplete applications will not be accepted. Contact the Floodplain Coordinator at 541,664.7602, Ext. 244 if you have any questions.
SrrE ADDRESS: lwfa and Tallrfotf 37S 2W 0309
_
Highway 99 at Twin Creeks Grossing FIRM f 161 & Panel No.: 41029C—IMU-
_T
Flood Zone: K Floodway SFE: 1255.4E-12bB illh. NAVD88 Base Depth. WA Minimum DFC
OWNER NAME. City of Central Point (Matt Samitore) APPUCANT1AGENT NAME: NIA
MAILING ADDRESS: 140 South Third Street, CP 97502 MAILING ADDRESS:
PHONE: E•MaL: PHONE: E-MAIL
cantrai into ort. v
As part of the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing project (construct new intersection), highway grades must be raised to match the elevaiJon
at the newintersection and new sidewalks constructed. The highway gtade adjustments and sidewalks will occur within the SFHA
and regulai0f)' floodway. A No -Rise Analysis has been prepared and demonstrates no adverse impact
Type of Use (Check one): Type of Activity(Oieck one): Additions& Remoclellnformadon:
C Resldentlal ::: Newstructure 1. Year Built
Mh<ed Use (residentialand non-- -. Replacement of existing structure 2. Existing Bldg. Valuation:
residential) :: Relocation of existing structure' Source:
.J Non residential(commercial,accessory) Addition toeJdstingstructurez 3. Proposed Canst. Cost:
i Elevated Remodel to wisting struct\Jrez Source:
Roodproofed (attach certification) muctures E11U..ted nnewlxlr\str diun
C1 Manufactured Home ddllialls...t - - -- .. — IIIiCHd so% afthe 4(a). Addition Type:
wlueaflhel!llbtJncllnldllre.-u.rubsbntlal _ Vertical
located on individuallot
nf, wllkh InonrhQNIDcompllonce With Ch.!.24. Ciliata'
Located in manufactured home park ore countedcumutavely rm:rolD-year 4(b) flalmfaI Addition, iSltstructurally
period. _;[ted? Ci Yes No
Other Structural Project
I. Lowest habitable floor elevation: feet, NAVE) 88 2- Garage Slab Elevation= feet, NAVD 88
3. Area of enclosed area below the BFE: so ft. 1 4. No. proposedAMIJA o nin s: Total Area: sa R
Check all the eroF2sed non-strudursl development activities associated with your project, as provided below.
1 Tree ve etadon and/or debris removal a Bridge of culvert replacement
Excavation IZ cu yardsl- = Stream bank stabiiizatlon
k, FlII placement M a. rds : -125 L: Watercourse alteration
Grading attach project adln n :; Subdivision with improvements in the SFHA
_
Fence or wall construction Capital Imrovement Pro ect lFunchanalfy dependent use
( Swimming I installation C. Other.
By signing below, I agree to the terms and conditions of this permit and certify to the best of my knowledge the information
contained in this i!pplication is complete, true and accurat .1 1 4r -
Matt Samitora 11 12-14-2016
Matt
(PRINTEDn mel (SIGNED name) <_: (Date)
PRINTED name) (SIGNED name)
Upolted 1/13/2012
46
ATTACHMENT "D"
RESOLUTION NO. 841
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A FLOODPLAIN
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/NO-RISE CERTIFICATE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF TWIN
CREEKS RAILROAD CROSSING ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE GRIFFIN
CREEK FLOODWAY
(File No: FP 16002)
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a Floodplain Development application and No -Rise
Certification to construct roadway improvements, including pavement reconstruction, and curb and gutter
and sidewalk construction in the Griffin Creek regulatory floodway on a portion of Highway 99 in Central
Point, OR 97502.
WHEREAS, the No -Rise Certification was prepared in accordance with FEMA's Guidance for «No-
Rise/No-Impact" Certification for Proposed Developments in Regulatory Floodways; and
WHEREAS, the No -Rise Certification confirms that the proposed roadway improvements will not
increase the base flood elevation or floodway profiles relative to the effective FEMA mapping; and
WHEREAS, on February 7, 2017, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point Planning
Commission considered the Applicant's request for floodplain development approval for the Twin Creeks
Railroad Crossing Floodplain DevelopmentPermit/No Rise Certification (the. Project"); and.
NOW, mEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point Planning Commission by
Resolution No. 841 hereby approves the Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing Floodplain
Development Permit/No-Rise Certification based on the Staff Report dated February 7. 2017,
including attachments incorporated by reference (Exlnoit "A"); and
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this Th day of
February 7.2017
Planning Commission Chair
ATIEST:
City Representative
Planning Commission Resolution No. 841 (217/2017)
47