Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC minutes August 6, 2019City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2019 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 6:00 PM by Chair Mike Oliver PLEDGE OFALLEGIENCE II. ROLL CALL Commissioners, Mike Oliver (chair), Amy Moore, Jim Mock, Pat Smith, Chris Richey and Kay Harrison were present. Tom Van Voorhees was absent. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner, Eileen Mitchell, Community Planner I, Jeanine Delchini, Community Development Support and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE There were no correspondences. IV. MINUTES Amy Moore made a motion to approve the June 4, 2019 Minutes. Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Chris Richey, abstained. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Discussion of Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Area (URA) CP -2B and recommendations to the City Council. Applicant: City of Central Point File No. CPA -19005. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey presented and discussed the Regional Plan, Planning Commission Meeting August 6, 2019 Page 2 the background, the issues with CP -213 and presented the three alternative plans for the Planning Commission to vote on and recommend in order of priority to the City Council. Mr. Humphrey gave a more detailed overview of each Alternate Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for the URA. He stressed the importance of complying with The Regional Plan to assign urban land use designations within the URA, by using the categories and percentages to which the City and County agreed. Mr. Humphrey gave an overview of the three Alternate Conceptual Plans' possibilities as they pertain to zoning and land use designations. All three Alternate Conceptual Plans meet the residential densities, the categories and percentages for the Regional Plan. All three Alternate Conceptual Plans leave room for flexibility when properties are brought into the UGB and/or an annexed into the City to allow modifications at the time change requests are received. Tom Gray, Bursell Road Mr. Gray, who is a new resident of Central Point, offered his opinion about mixed uses in the URA. He talked about the combination of commercial and residential buildings he was accustomed to in San Marcos, CA, which has the combination option more centralized in the downtown area of the city. Mr. Gray recommended commercial and residential building projects for the City of Central Point, if it has not already been suggested. Public discussion Closed Kay Harrison motioned to select one of the AIternate Concept Plan to present to the Council. Pat Smith seconded. Motion passed The Commission prioritized the plans as Alternate III, Alternate II and last Alternate 1. Amy Moore motioned to approve Resolution No. 873, Alternate Concept Plan III to be recommended to the Council. Kay Harrison seconded. ROLL CALL: Chris Richey; yes, Kay Harrison; yes, Amy Moore; yes, Pat Smith; yes, Jim Mock; yes. Motion passed. B. Discussion proposed Zoning Text Amendments to CPMC 17.77, Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) CPMC 17.77 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) and CPMC 17.08 Definitions. Applicant: City of Central Point. File No. ZC-19001. Principal Planner, Stephanie Holtey introduced amendments to CPMC 17.77 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) CPMC and CPMC 17.08 Definitions. Ms. Holtey stated ADUs are an important housing option in terms of increasing housing supply and affordability. The purpose of the draft code amendments is to remove regulatory barriers to ADU construction in the City and to comply with ORS 197.312(5), which requires the City to allow at least one ADU per single family dwelling in zones that permit single family detached dwellings. Additionally, the proposed code amendments are part of the Housing Implementation Plan approved by the City last year, which presents a 5 —year strategy for addressing the City's housing needs and Planning Commission Meeting August 6, 1019 Page 3 creating more opportunities for affordable housing options. The purpose of the discussion is to assure the proposed code amendments achieve the City's objective to address housing needs, and assure that standards outside the scope of ORS 197.312 are appropriate for Central Point in terms of maintaining neighborhood character consistent with the City's vision for the preferred future. Ms. Holtey stated that the City has received interest from property owners about ADUs but few have been constructed. Common barriers to ADU construction are: setback restrictions, size limits, non -conforming situations, off-street parking and costs. She gave an explanation of the recommended changes to the codes in regard to the specific common barriers: Size Limits. The current code limits ADUs to 35% of the primary dwelling's Gross Floor Area (GFA) or 800SF, whichever is less. This limits the living space substantially and has been reported as unrealistic in the community. The proposed amendment would increase the size allowed to 50% of the primary dwelling's GFA or 900SF, whichever is less. Ms. Holtey presented a table showing the impact the current and proposed size limit based on primary dwelling floor areas ranging from 1,200SF to 2,500SF. Commissioner Mock expressed concerns about the impact of allowing 2 -story ADUs due to noise and lighting impacts on neighboring properties. Ms. Holtey stated that the Planning Commission could recommend standards that will limit building height. Commissioner Richey stated that 900SF is too big. He recommended the size limit be changed to 50% of the primary dwelling GFA or 800SF, whichever is less. Setbacks. ADU setbacks are subject to the base zone standards, except for the rear yard setback. Currently, detached ADUs are allowed to be as close as 10 -ft from the rear yard property line. The proposed code retains the allowance and also adds an exception to allow non-residential accessory buildings that are 5 -ft from the side and rear property line (per CPMC 17.60.030(a) to be converted to an ADU subject to building code compliance. Mr. Humphrey explained the differences between an accessory structure and an ADU. An accessory structure is used for storage and work space. An ADU includes cooking facilities and is used for a residence. An ADU will have a separate address from the main residence. Off -Street parking. The zoning Code currently requires one off-street parking space per ADU. In addition to being costly to construct, providing off-street parking can be difficult in the space limited front yard area. Additionally Ms. Holtey reported the widening of a driveway to accommodate an off-street parking space often eliminates one on -street parking space. The proposed code amendment retains the requirement to provide one parking space, but allows flexibility to use an on -street space when immediately adjacent to the site and no other options exist for providing an off-street space. The Planning Commission discussed expressed concerns about parking location J Planning Commission Meeting .4ugust 6, 2019 Page 4 on -street versus off-street. More information was requested for further discussion at the next meeting. Could this be better stated? Ms. Holtey requested direction from the Planning Commission to decide if these code amendments for ADUs are ready for a Public Hearing or if they need to be brought back for further discussion at the September 3, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting. Members of the public were invited to participate in the ADU discussion. No members of the public responded and the discussion was continued to the September 3, 2019 meeting. Planning Update Mr. Humphrey gave the following update on land use development activities in the community. • Twin Creeks Crossing's railroad signal poles have arrived and the completion of the crossing project is scheduled for August 15, 2019. • The Creamery was able to acquire the Shady Oaks property and adjoining building. They are making superficial improvements, and they are working on a plan for expanding their cold storage. • Mr. Humphrey has been in contact with Rogue Bin about making a boundary line adjustment with Smith Crossing and the property owned by the Moores. The 50 townhouses and apartments combo is approved on S. Haskell. • The City has acquired property on S. Haskell for a future Corporation Yard and some lots for sale Light Industrial/ Commercial Use. • Mr. Humphrey and Matt Samitore have plans to meet with the owner of the property at the end of Haskell, which is the only property preventing the two streets from connecting. The meeting will be to discuss the sale of the right of way to the City. • The property on Oak St. and 6th St., which used to be a drug house, has been purchased by the Patridge Family. We are in discussion with them about a tentative proposal of remodeling and extending the existing house to a series of row -houses. This proposal will clean up the property and meet the City's current zoning and density requirements. Ms. Holtey and Mr. Humphrey have had positive meetings with the County about the UGB Amendment. We are just waiting on the Transportation Impact Analysis before we submit our UGB Amendment Package. • A Site Plan Architectural Review and Conditional Use Permit for Premier Lube and Car Wash facility at Table Rock and Biddle Rd will be presented at the September meeting. • A tentative plan to partition the property at 1776 Beall Lane into three separate lots has been submitted. It may be presented in the September Planning Commission Meeting. The Commission asked if we will have an annexation application on the Grant Rd. property. Mr. Humphrey; stated yes we have an application to present to the City Council. Mr. Humphrey clarified annexation applications are taken right to the Council when there is a clear Planning Commission Meeting August 6, 2019 Page 5 legal boundary involving of one property owner and inside the UGB, VII. DISCUSSION VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Amy Moore moved to adjourn the meeting. Jim Mock seconded the motion. All members said "aye". Meeting was adjourned at 7:50 p.m. Planning Commission Chair