HomeMy WebLinkAbout06012021 Planning Commission PacketA
CENTRAL
POINT
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
June 1, 2021- 6:00 p.m.
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
III. ROLL CALL
Planning Commission members, Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Amy Moore, Jim Mock, Pat
Smith, Kay Harrison, Brad Cozza
IV. CORRESPONDENCE
V. MINUTES
Review and approval of the April 6, 2021 Planning Commission meeting minutes.
VI. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VII. BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing to consider text amendments to the flood damage prevention
regulations in order to comply with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
standards and the Community Rating System (CRS) program requirements.
VIII. DISCUSSION
A. Discussion regarding standards and regulations for Mobile Food Vendors and
other vending units, such as food trucks, trailers and carts within the City of
Central Point.
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
X. MISCELLANEOUS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Individuals needing special accommodations such as sign language, Foreign language interpreters or equipment for the hearing impaired
must request such services at least 72 hours prior to the City Counci I meeting. To make your request, please contact the City Recorder at
541-423-1026 (voice), or by e-mail at: deanna.case ceiitral ointore on. ov .
Si necesita traductor en espanol o servicios de discapacidades (ADA) para asistir a una junta publica de la ciudad por favor flame con
72 horas de anticipaci6n al 541-664-3321 ext. 201.
1
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
April 6, 2021
Meeting Held Via Zoom and in
person
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:04 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Tom Van Voorhees (chair), Jim Mock, Kay Harrison, Brad
Cozza, Pat Smith and Amy Moore were present in person.
Also in attendance were, Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director
(via zoom) Stephanie Holtey, Principal Planner (in person) Matt Samitore, Public Works
Director, (via Zoom) Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary (in person).
III. CORESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
Kay Harrison made a motion to approve the March 3, 2021 minutes. Pat Smith
seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Brad Cozza, yes; Jim Mock,
yes; Pat Smith, yes. Amy Moore, abstain. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Consideration of a Site -Plan and Architectural Review application to construct a
mixed-use development on three lots totaling 2.83 acres in the Twin Creeks TOD. The
proposal depicts two of the 3 -story buildings with a common plaza area on either side of a
pedestrian promenade. There will be a total of 11,482 square feet of ground floor
commercial lease space (broken down into 16 separate spaces); two live -work units and 87
dwelling units incorporated into a total of four building complexes. The site is within the
High Mix Residential (HMR) zone and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's Map
as 37 2W 03CA TLs 107, 108, 130.Applicant: Smith Crossing LLC; Agent: Scott Sinner
Consulting, Inc. (Scott Sinner)
Planning Commission Chair Tom Van Voorhees read the rules for a quasi-judicial hearing. The
Commissioners had no Conflicts of interest, bias or ex parte contact to declare.
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey gave an overview of the Twin Creeks
Master Plan (TCMP) which was approved by the City Council in 2001. According to the
2
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 2021
Page 2
Master Plan, high -mix residential/ commercial was planned for the subject property. He said the
Applicant is proposing to construct 4 buildings. Two of the buildings are townhomes and flats,
and two are mixed use buildings with commercial space on the first floor and flats and
townhomes on the second and third floor. Two of the units are considered `live -work' which have
a commercial/office space and a residential component that is occupied by the same tenant. The
proposal is within the minimum/maximum range for density. He added the Applicant is proposing
more than the minimum parking requirement for the project. They are also proposing to create
additional on street parking.
The project site is served by all infrastructure identified in the Master Plan and all utilities are
available to the site
Mr. Humphrey said buildings 1 and 4 are three-story structures designed to be visually interesting
and pedestrian friendly with large windows and entries from the sidewalks.
The Twin Creeks Master PIan (TCMP) governs land use and circulation. Mr. Humphrey stated
RVTD planned to begin a new route (Route 43) last lune but the COVID pandemic caused
staffing shortages and reduced service. Their intention is to resume all service levels September
2021 and add Route 43 in early 2022. This route will circulate through Twin Creeks, serving
those residents and traveling east and west across town with connections to Medford.
He said The Master Plan included a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) that evaluated the impacts of
land uses planned throughout Twin Creeks.
He added the opening of the Twin Creeks Rail Crossing has removed a self-imposed trip cap and
now allows the TCMP to build out consistent with the adopted zoning. Changes to the TCMP
may necessitate a review of traffic impacts but the applicant is not proposing changes to the land
use or zoning that was approved by the City.
Mr. Humphrey stated some residents of Blue Moon Drive have expressed concern about the use
of the existing alley to enter and leave the Twin Creeks Village parking lot. The alley right of
way is 25 feet wide and currently provides access to rear loaded garages. The access from North
Haskell can be used more directly without traveling behind existing homes. The access from
Silver Creek would be shared along with four other proposed driveways. The circulation plan
reflected in the site plan indicates that there will be multiple ways to enter and leave the new
parking area and minimize conflicts with Blue Moon residents.
Buildings 2 and 3 will be the most prominent buildings south of the Central Common Park. Per
the Applicant's Findings, placement of the structures in this location is desirable to provide a
visual reference to the TOD core area. Building 4 is also a 3 -story building with frontage on
Silver Creek Drive. Some residents from Blue Moon Drive have expressed concern about the size
and scale of the building relative to the backs of their homes. Proximity, obstructed views and
privacy are main concerns. He said the Applicant has proposed several options to resolve the
issues.
The TCMP encourages street frontages to be pedestrian friendly with active public space. The
TCMP depicts this type of development in the HMR zoning district. On Blue Moon Drive the
houses are all alley loaded and so their back yards abut the internal parking area and rear
entrances to the mixed-use buildings."
In collaboration with the Public Works Department, the applicants redesigned their parking lot to
dedicate the required right of way to add diagonal parking on the south side of Twin Creeks
Crossing Loop. The Twin Creeks Crossing Loop is a one-way street and the Public Works
3
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 2021
Page 3
Department has determined that the expansion and addition of diagonal parking will enhance and
not diminish traffic circulation in this area. Those concerned about parking in front of the
business can alternatively park in the internal on-site lot and walk through to stores. Two
recommended conditions of approval from Public Works address parking and frontage
improvements on Twin Creeks Crossing Loop.
The proposed site plan does not address the on-site lighting standards necessary to illuminate
building entrances, upper stories and pedestrian walkways per CPMC 17.67.050(L). It will be
necessary to provide an overall lighting plan. The applicant has stated in their findings that
lighting is a design -build contract and was not included in the development proposal. A condition
has been added to address on-site lighting.
The proposed site plan depicts a covered parking garage. The landscaping plan indicates that it
can only be accessed from the north side and this arrangement conflicts with five other dedicated
parking spaces. The applicant needs to clarify for the Planning Commission what they have in
mind for the use of this building and whether or not the total parking space count will remain the
same or be reduced.
The Public Hearing was Onened
Milo Smiths Applicant
Mr. Smith stated he appreciated being part of the Twin Creeks vision for the commercial aspect
of the Master Plan. The Commissioners asked what was planned for the commercial units. He
said the spaces are designed to be flexible and by moving walls they could open up more square
footage depending on what a tenant needed. They have envisioned possible restaurants on the
plaza portion and have designed outdoor seating there. He thought they would be able to start
underground construction this summer and possibly begin construction of the buildings around
the first of the year.
Mr. Smith said he wanted to address the concerns that have been stated starting with the mass of
building 4. He said it had been designed to be consistent with the Municipal Code and he
understood the concerns of the neighbors with the size of the building. He said he could
eliminate the third floor windows looking down on the alley. Building 4 could be shifted to the
north approximately 6 '/z feet he thought. He said he would need to check the exact distance. He
said this would enable them to create a larger buffer area and landscaping to soften the impact of
the building. He said to eliminate windows would require a redesign of the building but he was
willing to do that.
Regarding traffic he explained there were 100 units in the first phase of the Smith Crossing
apartments and the traffic has not been significantly impacted. This application is 89 units with 4
on twin creeks crossing loop which would not be utilizing the alley. He stated the commercial
traffic would most likely be parking on the street in the front of the building with the residential
traffic utilizing the parking lot. Most of the traffic would be on North Haskell or Silver Creek.
He did not envision significant traffic impact to the alley.
The Commissioners asked about delivery and loading traffic for the commercial units. Mr. Smith
said he thought most of that traffic would come off Twin Creeks Crossing Loop and would be
early in the morning, however he did not have any actual information at this time. He added that
as the owners they would be able to dictate how and when deliveries can occur.
The Commissioners discussed the size of the parking spaces. Mr. Smith said there were 6 -8
compact spots and all the rest were 9 by 17 feet, which was an average size. They discussed
El
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 2021
Page 4
various local areas where parking was a problem. Mr. Smith said they were very sensitive to the
parking issues. In his opinion most of the commercial traffic would utilize the on street parking in
the front of the building.
He added the alley access on North Haskell and on Silver Creek will be 25 feet wide which
should be sufficient for traffic in and out of the parking lot. He said the walking path which
crosses the parking lot could be raised to act as a speed bump. There are other speed bumps in
the parking lot to slow traffic. They discussed landscaping and the garage units which could be
rented by tenants.
Cynthia Sorenson 654 Blue Moon
Ms. Sorenson stated this has been very stressful for her. She has lived on Blue Moon for 14 years
and is unhappy that the view from the bedroom windows will be of the new buildings instead of
the mountains. She said she did not feel that the proposed parking spaces were enough for 16
businesses. She said the number of parking spots for the 89 residential units did not seem
sufficient either. She said driving on North Haskell was not the same as it used to be with all the
on street parking from the new apartments. Drivers were pulling out in front of other drivers.
She was concerned that people might be parking in front of her house on Blue Moon leaving her
no space there. She said there is insufficient space in her driveway to park her car should she
need to. She thought utilizing the existing parking around Twin Creeks Park would be
problematic because people already fill those spaces when they come to use the park.
Additionally, there is already a lot of traffic on Blue Moon Alley. People drive too fast and it is
dangerous for children who live there. More traffic would make it worse. She wanted to know if
the additional traffic will interfere with the garbage collection from the alley. She reiterated the
building would be too close and too large. She said other neighbors were also concerned. She
stated this would devalue their properties. She asked who the tenants would be, what the rents
would be, and if there would be any low income housing included in the project. She also asked
who will manage the property and take care of the landscaping. She was especially concerned
about the use of lavender plants. She asked if the lighting would be problematic for bedrooms
which face the parking lot.
Judi Chappell
Ms. Chappell said she lives on Blue Moon and her garage is on the alley. She said she had
originally been told the whole alley was being expanded to 25 feet. Her concern is that the 25
foot width applies only to the ends of the alley where the entrances to the parking lot are located.
She also asked ifthere are going to be speed bumps put in the alley. She said she thought her
garage will face the parking lot, however Cindy Sorenson's will be facing the 3 story building.
She asked for clarification. Ms. HoItey explained the configuration for her. Mr. Humphrey
added comments stating there would be three dwellings which faced the three story building.
Ms. Sorenson asked where people will be able to park when they go to events at the park.
Mary Knoth, Blue Moon Dr.
Ms. Knoth said she also shares the concerns that have been presented. She said with all the new
development there was more traffic. She wanted to know why things were so close to each other.
She thought the development was too cramped.
Mr. Van Voorhees stated the Planning Commission's job was to help the City anticipate and
thoughtfully facilitate its projected growth over the next 20 years. He said the State of Oregon has
regulations regarding growth which affect development. The preservation of farmland land and
agricultural resources is a priority for both the state and the City. By increasing the density near
1.7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 2021
Page S
the downtown area, it allows people the option to walk or bike to services rather than drive, thus
reducing emissions and preserving valuable farmland. He said the Master Plan for Twin Creeks
was approved with the mixed use concept many years ago. He explained this discussion is about
the best way to develop the land in accordance with the Master Plan.
Milo Smith
Mr. Smith said he thought the best option would be to move building 4 as far to the north as
possible in order to give more space for landscape buffering. He said he could redesign the
building to eliminate the windows that would overlook the properties directly behind it. He said
the rents will be between $900 and $1350. As far as speed bumps go he said it was a City street
so he could not address that. He said there would be speed bumps at the entrances to the parking
lot to control traffic.
Tom Van Voorhees asked if the seating on the plaza would be available for pedestrians or only
restaurant patrons. Mr. Smith said there was one bench for pedestrians and he could put in
another one. Mr. Smith said at this time it is hard to predict what businesses will locate there.
The Commissioners clarified that 1.5 spaces for each unit is regular calculation for all
multifamily developments. They discussed directional signage as a means of traffic control.
The Public Hearing was Closed.
Pat Smith made a motion to approve Resolution 890 with the conditions as proposed by staff.
Kay Harrison seconded the motion.
They reviewed the purpose of the Site Plan and Architectural Review process. Ms. Holtey stated
the staff presentation noted the location, zoning and architecture of the proposed buildings. In the
process Mr. Humphrey identified a series of issues raised by the community and potential code
conflicts. He did an analysis of how those issues could be resolved. She said the Planning
Commission's job tonight is to look at all facts in the record pertaining to the proposal at hand
and to render a decision based on whether or not the application complies with the applicable
standards in the zoning code.
She said the applicant has provided findings of fact and conclusions of law and there are
supplemental findings prepared by planning staff that address each of those criteria. The
recommendation made by staff in the presentation was to approve the Site Plan and Architectural
Review application subject to conditions of approval. The conditions have been identified to be
necessary to meet the standards in the CPMC.
She explained the public hearing is an opportunity for everyone to give their input as to whether
or not the application meets the standards set forth in the code. She added if the applicant does
make any changes to a site plan it would be subject to a modification process.
Mr. Humphrey made a suggestion to add a condition of approval directing the applicant to revise
their plan to reflect the changes proposed in this meeting.
The motion was amended to approve the Site Plan and Architectural Review as presented by staff
with the additional condition of approval that the applicant make modifications to building 4 as
proposed in this meeting. Including modifying the site plan to shift Building 4to the north; add
evergreen landscape buffer enhancements to soften the appearance of the building and adjust the
third floor windows. Brad Cozza seconded the motion.
I
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 202/
Page 6
ROLL CALL: Kay Harrison, yes; Amy Moore, yes; Jim Mock, yes; Pat Smith, yes; Brad Cozza,
yes. Motion passed.
7:43 p.m. There was a short break
7:48 the meeting was reconvened.
VIII. DISCUSSION
A. Discussion regarding standards and regulations for Mobile Food Vendors and other
vending units, such as food trucks, trailers and carts within the City of Central Point.
Tom Humphrey said Mr. Gindlesperger could not be there to present this evening. There will be
a general discussion of this topic and the Commissioners can continue it until the May meeting.
He stated Food trucks are gaining in popularity. They have been allowed in C-4 zones for many
years. More recently some have been allowed temporarily on Front Street. The City has been
asked about the possibility of a food court. The main concern is that they are competing with
local restaurants who have a lot of overhead.
Tom Van Voorhees stated the Rogue Creamery might do a truck in 2021. It would facilitate a lot
of opportunities for the store. Would that preclude him from this discussion? Mr. Humphrey said
no.
The Commissioners expressed mixed feelings. They felt loyalty to restaurants was important but
Food Trucks would add more variety. A larger variety of food options might not impact
restaurants negatively, but could draw additional customers. They felt Food trucks are gaining in
popularity and the City should make thoughtful arrangements to incorporate them. They agreed
that power sources, restrooms and handwashing stations would be some things to evaluate. They
also discussed that noise might be a concern.
Mr. Humphrey said this iters will be going to the Citizen's Advisory Committee next week.
The Commissioners agreed to continue the item to the May meeting and review the CAC's
comments.
B. Residential zoning Code Amendments. Discussion of pending code
amendments needed to comply with HB 2001 authorizing duplexes in single family
zoning districts and other changes to meet average minimum density requirements
in the Regional Plan Element and eliminate identified barriers to housing.
Ms. Holtey said In December 2021, the City Council approved the City's first Housing
Implementation Plan (HIP). The HIP sets forth the City's 5 -year strategy for increasing housing
supply and afrordability. It includes short-term and long-term projects that address a variety of
issues that affect the housing situation in Central Point. Since adoption of the HIP, the City has
completed an update to its Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) regulations and is in the process of
amending its Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to increase its residential land supply. At this time,
the City is starting the process of amending its residential zoning districts to add new housing
types, increase residential densities and eliminate identified barriers to housing construction.
7
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 2021
Page 7
She stated the City is required to allow duplexes in zoning districts that allow single-family
detached housing. This requirement was enacted by the State with passage of House Bill (HB)
2001 in 2019 to increase housing supply in already developed neighborhoods. HB 2001 limits
maximum setbacks and specifies that a duplex may be created on a lot even if doing so would
exceed the City's existing maximum density standard. She said the state's definition of a duplex
is two dwelling units on one lot in any configuration. She showed examples of standard units that
share a common wall, two detached units on one lot, units attached by a breezeway, and stacked
units and units attached by garages. She added the critical question for discussion at this time is
what design and development standards may be appropriate to promote neighborhood
compatibility. She said that staff is also preparing code amendments to allow cottage clusters in
low and medium density zoning districts.
Ms. Holtey explained that before lands in the new UGB expansion areas can be annexed, the City
is required to increase its minimum density requirements provide a minimum average density of
7.04 units per acre from now until 2040. The result of this change will be smaller lot sizes and
more housing required throughout the City. She said that as we make these changes, it would be
beneficial to start exploring design and development standards that can foster creation of
neighborhoods that are attractive and reflect the community's preferred vision for its future.
She reviewed the regulatory barriers to housing stating some standards in the current residential
zoning districts limit feasibility of high density residential development projects. One objective of
the code amendments is to address these standards to increase feasibility of housing projects in
the city that align with the intent and purpose of the zoning district it is located in.
The proposed code amendments will not resolve all of the issues that affect supply and
affordability, but they do aim to address outdated standards needed to help improve the housing
situation.
The Commissioners agreed infill development should be a priority. They discussed development
standards and said they preferred thoughtful and creative design to more cookie cutter
neighborhoods. They reviewed the standards in the Twin Creeks Development and expressed
opinions of what worked well and what could be different. They agreed there was a need for a
diverse housing inventory.
The Commissioners identified walkability and affordability while retaining a small town feel as
important issues. They also felt there was an opportunity to design a place that would appeal to a
wide variety of residents. This would include attention to parks and open spaces, schools and
community resources.
They talked about the differences between duplexes and townhomes and the different types of
accessory dwelling units that could be constructed. Ms. Holtey said the state building regulations
were also a component in these issues. She summarized the density requirements and the
strategies that could be implemented to encourage.
The Commissioners suggested changes to the glazing requirements, building materials and
setback requirements as things that would make a difference in development. Also expanding lot
coverage standards would help in increasing density. They stated again a diverse inventory of
housing types was very important.
Ms. Holtey said she would prepare changes along the lines of things discussed and present them
M.
Planning Commission Meeting
April 6, 2021
Page 8
at the next meeting.
Mr. Humphrey said the County Board of Commissioners would be approving the UGB
Amendment on April 14, 2001.
He invited the Planning Commission to attend a Council study session on land use
procedures with City Attorney Sydnee Dreyer on April 19, 2021 at 6:00 p.m.
IX. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
X. MISCELLANEOUS
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Pat Smith moved to adjourn the meeting. Kay Harrison seconded the motion.
Meeting was adjourned at 8:59 p.m.
Planning Commission Chair
p
FLOOD PREVENTION TEXT AMENDMENTS
10
STAFF REPORT
CENTRAL
POINT
June 1, 2021
Agenda Item: VII -A
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director
Consideration of Central Point Municipal Code text amendments to CPMC 8.24, Flood Damage
Prevention. File No. ZC-21002. Approval Criteria: CPMC 17. 10, Zoning Map and Text
Amendments.
Staff Source
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner II
Background
The City's floodplain management program supports community resiliency through preventive
and corrective measures. These measures include requirements for zoning, subdivisions,
buildings and building codes and the overall floodplain environment. The proposed amendments
provide updates to the floodplain management standards to reflect changes in state and federal
requirements, provide clarity for development, and promote a more disaster -resistant community.
Discussion:
The City participates in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which has minimum
management standards for communities. Since Central Point implements higher standards, the
City also participates in the Community Rating System (CRS), which is a voluntary incentive
program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain management practices that
exceed the minimum requirements of the NFIP.
Participation in the CRS requires documentation, certification and adhering to floodplain
management standards. In anticipation of the City's upcoming verification visit for the 2020-
2021 cycle this fall, the Planning Department is amending the floodplain development
regulations for consistency with state and federal requirements and ensuring compliance with the
prerequisites for the City's ranking within the program.
The Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC) reviewed the draft amendments at the April 13, 2021
meeting and provided a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission. Comments and
discussion with the CAC highlighted the proposed amendments will not affect implementation of
the floodplain management program, are necessary to maintain good -standing within the federal
programs, and will provide additional safety from flooding hazards.
During this meeting, staff will review the updates to the floodplain development regulations.
Attached is a copy of the draft amendments to the floodplain development regulations.
11
ISSUES:
The primary issue in considering the amendments to the floodplain development regulations is to
provide consistency with state and federal requirements, identify local policies and actions that
can be implemented to reduce flood losses, and protect City residents from the dangers of
flooding.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:
The proposed zoning text amendments have been reviewed against and found to comply with the
applicable review criteria in CPMC 17. 10, Zoning Map and Text Amendments as demonstrated
in the Planning Department Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (Attachment `B").
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment "A" --Draft Amendments to CPMC 8.24 (Mark-up)
Attachment `B" — Planning Department Findings of Fact
Attachment "C" — Resolution No. 89I
ACTION:
Consider the proposed text amendments to CPMC 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention, and 1)
forward to the Council for approval, 2) make revisions and forward the ordinance to the Council
or 3) deny the ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 891, a Resolution recommending approval of the amendments to CPMC
8.24, Flood Damage Prevention.
12
Attachment "A"
CPMC 8.24 Flood Damage Prevention
8.24.010 Statutory Authorization
The of Oregon has in ORS 197.175 delegated the responsibility to local
governmental units to adopt Floodplain manapement regulations designed to promote the public health,
safety, and general welfare of its citizenry. Therefore, the city ordains and sets out the provisions of this
chapter.
8.24.030 Statement of Purpose
J. Participate in and maintain eligibility for flood insurance and disaster relief.
8.24.050 Definitions
"Area of shallow flooding" means a designated AO or AH zone on the flood insurance rate map (FIRM)
with base flood depths ranging from one to three feet, and/or where a clearly defined channel does not
exist, where the path of flooding is unpredictable and indeterminate, and where velocity flow may be
evident. AO zones are characterized as having sheet flow, and AH zones indicate ponding. For both AO
and AH zones ade uate drainage paths are re uired around structures on slopes to.guide floodwaters
around and away from Pr000sed structures.
"Area of special flood hazard" means the land in the floodplain within a community subject to a one
percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year. ZgRes designating afeas 9f speeial 4988 ha
e•A f!eeel OnsuFaRGe Fate Fnap= alwaysncl de the jetk*. " e• "It is shown on the Flood Insurance Rate
Ma FIRM as zone A AO AH Al -30 AE A99 AR. Also known as the special flood hazard area (SFHA).
"Base flood elevation (BFE)" means the water surface elevation to which floodwater is anticipated to
rise during the base flood in : elation to a specmf el The BFE is depicted on the flood insurance
rate map (FIRM) to the nearest foot and in the flood insurance study (FIS) to the nearest tenth of a foot,
"Development" means any manmade change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not
limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation, or drilling
operations; or storage of equipment and materials located within the area of special flood hazard.
Exemptions to the definition of development, for the purpose of administering this chapter, include:
1. Signs, rnaFketsmarkers, aids, etc., placed by a public agency to serve the public provided the
encroachment in the special flood hazard area is no larger than a standard utility pole; and
2. Residential gardens; provided, that they do not result in unauthorized, substantial alteration of
topography; and provided, that gardening methods do not include the use or application of
pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers or other toxic materials.
"Floodway" or "regulatory floodway" means the channel of a river or other watercourse and the
adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively
increasing the water surface elevation more than ene faAa designated height.
13
"Functionally Depend ent Use" means a use which cannot perform its intended purpose unless it is
located or carried out in close nrnyi-ity to water. The term includes only docking facilities ort facilities
that are necessary for the loadi
!mgg and unloading o€cargo ar Passengers, and ship building and ship
repair facilities and does not include long term storage or related Mani ifarti iring, Manufacilities.
"Hi hest Adiacent Grade" means the hi hest natural elevation of the ground surface prior to
construction next to thera ased walls of a structure.
"Reasonably safe from flooding" means
prep9sed4u44 %9devela ment is designed and built to be safe from flooding based on consideration of
current flood elevation studies historical data high water marks and other reliable data known to the
cam munit . In unnumbered A zones where flood elevation information is not available and cannot be
obtained fa practical means reasonabl safe from €loodin means that the lowest floor is at least two
feet above f lighest Adjacent Grade.
sales cp f i.*•
8.24.060 Lands to which this chapter applies
A. Applicability. This chapter shall apply to all areas of special flood hazards within the jurisdiction of the
city. All development within special flood hazard areas is sub'ect to the terms of this chapter and other
applicable regulations. Nothing in this chapter is intended to allow uses or structures that are otherwise
prohibited by the zoning regulations or specialty codes.
B. Community Boundary Alterations. The Floodplain Administrator shall notif the Federal insurance
Administrator in writin whenever the boundaries of the comm unit have been modified by annexation
or the communitv has otherwise assumed authority or no longer has authority to adopt and enforce
floodplain management regulations fora particular area to ensure that all Flood Hazard Boundar Ma s
FHBM and Flood Insurance Rate Mas FIRM accuratef re resent the Comm unit 's boundaries.
Include within such notification a copy of a ma of the commurifty suitable for reproduction, clear)
delineatinp, the new corporate limits or new area for which the the community has assumed or
relinquished floodplain mann ement regulator authorit .
8.24.200 Development in Regulatory Floodways
E. Temporary encroachments in the regulatory floodway for the purposes of capital improvement
projects, including bridges and culverts, maybe permitted if the encroachment
results in an increase in flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge, and without
sbt&iA r provided that a Conditional Letter of Map Revisions ICLOMR is a lied for and a roved b
the Federal Insurance Administrator and the re uirements for such revision as established Lander
Volume 44 of the Cade of Federal Regulations, section 65.12 are Fulfilled. Tomporary encroachments
shall comply with afl other applicable flood hazard reduction orovisionq of this chapter and may be
permitted when:
14
1. The project is limited as to duration with the days and dates that the structure or other
development will be in the regulatory floodway, as specified in the floodplain development
permit;
2. Accessory structures (i.e., construction trailers) are restricted from the regulatory floodway
3. The project limits placement of equipment and material in the regulatory floodway to that
which is absolutely necessary for the purposes of the project. Justification that demonstrates
compliance with this requirement will be documented by the applicant in the required floodplain
development permit application submittal documentation;
4. The applicant identifies any insurable structures affected by temporary changes to the area of
special flood hazard or BFE and notifies owners of any increased risk of flooding. Documentation
demonstrating compliance with this provision shall be provided to the city as part of the
floodplain development application; and
5. The project applicant is provided with written notification that they may be liable for any flood
damages resulting from the temporary encroachment.
F. Projects for stream habitat restoration may be permitted in the floodway, provided:
1. The project qualifies for a Department of the Army, Portland District Regional General Permit
for Stream Habitat Restoration (NWP-2007-1023);
2. The proiect does not result in a potential rise in the flood elevation;
-23.. A q4a1+4
rceFtifiGatiGn that the project was desigFied te Conditional Letter of Maya Amendment
CLOMR is applied for and approved by the Federal Insurance Administrator for any rise in the
base flood levels, stir t^ .Beall possible giventhe goals ...F r and the
requirements for such revision as established under Volume 44 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, section 65.12 are fulfilled and
3. Ple WuctuFe6 would be impacted by a peteRtial rise On the flood elevatmen; and
4. An agreement to monitor the project, correct problems and ensure that flood carrying capacity
remains unchanged is included as part of the local floodplain development approval
8.24.250 Floodplain Development Standards for Construction
B. Construction Materials and Methods
1. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed with materials and
utility equipment resistant to flood damage.
2. All new construction and substantial improvements shall be constructed using methods and
practices that minimize flood damage.
3. Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, a+W-air-conditioning, duct systems, and equipment
and other service facilities shall be elevated at least one foot above the BFE.
15
a. An excelition is allowed fore ui nrent and service facilities that are asOer designed er
leeateEl nd installed to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the
components and to resist h drostaUc and h droll namic loads and stresses including the
effects of buo anc during conditions of flooding to the BFE. Utilities permitted below
the BFE are those s etificall desi Hell to be located in areas of flooding and may include:
i. Electricals stems a ui me- nt and components;
iii ventilation, air tonditionine:
di. Plumbing, a liances and lumbin fixtures
iv. Ducts stems, and
V. Other services facilities
a -b. In addition electrical heating,ventilationPlumbing, air conditioning,ducts stems and
other !giui ment and services that are re laced as art of a substantial im rovement
shall meet all requirements of this section.
C. Structures Located in Multi le or Partial Flood Zones.
In coordination with the State of Ore on S ecialt Codes:
1. When a structure is located in multiple flood zones on the community's Flood Insurance Rate
Ma s FIRM the rovisions for the more restrictive flood zone shall apply.
z. When astructure jLnaiqk[[Y located in a special flood hazard area the entire structure shali
meet the reciuirements for new construction and substantial improvements.
G. Manufactured Dwellings. In addition to subsections A and B of this section, new, replacement and
substantially improved manufactured dwellings are subject to the following standards:
1. Manufactured dwellings shall be elevated on a permanent foundation, such that the lowest
floor of the manufactured home is elevated a minimum of eighteen inches above the BFE or depth
numbers ecified ❑n the FIRM; or if no base depth is s ecified in an area ❑f shallow floodin flood
zones AO and AH shall be elevated at least two feet above the highest adjacent grade,•
2. Manufactured dwellings supported on solid foundation walls with enclosed areas below the BFE
are prohibited unless the foundation walls are designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic
forces by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters. Designs for meeting this requirement
must be certified by a registered professional engineer or architect, or meet or exceed the
minimum criteria set forth in subsections (E)(2)(a)(i) through (iii) of this section;
3. The bottom of the longitudinal chassis frame beam in A zones shall be at least twelve inches
above the BFE;
16
4. The manufactured dwelling shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse and lateral
movement during the base flood. Anchoring methods may include, but are not limited to, use of
over -the -top or frame ties to ground anchors; and
5. Electrical crossover connections shall be a minimum of twelve inches above the BFE.
Refer to FEMA's Manufactured Home Installation in Flood Hazard Areas guidebook for additional
information
Nd. Recreational Vehicles. In all areas of Special Flood Hazard, Recreational Vehicles that are an allowed
use or structure under the zoning ordinance must either:
1. Be placed on the site for fewer than one hundred eighty consecutive days;
2. Be fully licensed and ready for highway use; be on its wheels or jacking system; be attached to
the site only by quick disconnect type utilities and security devices, and have no permanently
attached additions; or
3. Meet the requirements of subsection G -H of this section, Manufactured Dwellings, and
including the elevation and anchoring requirements.
1-J. Accessory Structures. Relief from the elevation or dry floodproofing standaFels-Lguirements for
residential and non-residential structures in Riverine Non -Coastal flood zones may be granted for an
accessory structure WAg-Ra-mere than twe hu.—Fed squaFe feet. Such a strurst e ^^ stthat meets
the following standards:
1. In compliance with State of Oregon 5 ecia ItV Codes accessorV structures on ro erties that are
zoned residential are limited to one-storV structures less than 200 s care feet or 400 square feet
if theproperty is greater than two 2 acres in area and the proposed accessorV structure will be
located more than 20 feet from all property lines. Accessory structures on properties that are
zoned as non-residential are limited in size to 120 square feet.
2. Be located and constructed to minimize flood damage;
-2 3. Be designed so as to not impede flow of flood waters under base flood conditions;
-3 4.. Be prohibited in the regulatory floodway;
4 5. It shall not be used for human habitation and may be used solely for parking of vehicles or
storage of items having low damage potential when submerged;
§ 6.. Toxic material, oil or gasoline, or any priority persistent pollutant identified by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality shall not be stored belew 104 --- whe-,, 1399 ,s avail -,we
!ewer than thFee feet above gFade,in an accessory structure_ unless confined in a tank installed in
compliance with this chapter;
6 7. Be constructed of flood resistant materials;
-7 8. Be firmly anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, and lateral movement of the structure
resu Iting from h drod namic and h drostatic loads i ncl u di ng the effects of buoyancy, during
conditions of the Kase flood;
17
8. Have electrical service and/or mechanical equipment elevated or flood -proofed tG GFa
minimum of one foot above the BFE as set forth in subsection (13113) of this section• and
9. Be designed to equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the automatic
entry and exit of floodwater. Designs for complying with this requirement must be certified by a
licensed professional engineer or architect or meet the minimum design criteria set forth in
subsections (E)(2)(a)(i) through (iii) of this section.
8.24.270 Interpretations and Variances
B. Variances. Exceptions to the standards and criteria of this chapter shall be made in writing to the
floodplain administrator on the form provided by the city and include, at a minimum, the same
information required for a floodplain development permit, a written explanation for the basis of the
variance request and any necessary documentation to show the variance is warranted and meets the
criteria established in subsection (13)(2) of this section.
1. Procedural Requirements. Variances shall be subject to the procedural requirements set forth in
Section 17.05.400 for a Type III (quasi-judicial) review procedure.
2. Variance Criteria. The city shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a
variance based on the following criteria:
e. Variances may be issued for a wate-r-functionally dependent use; provided, that the structure or
other development is protected by methods that minimize flood damages during the base flood
and create no additional threats to public safety.
3. Variance Notification. Anv gnplignt to whom a variance is granted shall be given written notice
that the issuance of a variance to construct a structure below the Base Flood Elevation will result
in increased premium rates for flood insurance and that such construction below the Base Flood
Elevation increases risks to life and property. Such notification and a record of all variance actions
including iustification shall be maintained in accordance with Section 17.05.400.
Attachment "B"
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: ZC-21002
Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission
Consideration of a Zone Text Amendments to Central Point Municipal Code
Chapter 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention to comply
with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards
and the Community Rating System (CRS) program requirements.
Applicant:
City of Central Point
140 South 3' Street
Central Point, OR 97502
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
Findings of Fact
and
Conclusion of Law
The proposed text amendment aims to provide consistency with Federal and State guidance and
implement improved base floodplain management standards to promote a safer community.
The zone text amendment request is a legislative amendment, which is processed using Type IV
application procedures. Type IV procedures set forth in Section 17.05.500 provides the basis for
decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when
appropriate.
Applicable development code criteria for this Application include CPMC 17. 10, which includes
compliance with the statewide planning goals, comprehensive plan and Transportation Planning Rule.
The amendment's compliance with applicable criteria are presented in Part 2 and summarized in Part 3.
PART 2 - ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE
17.10.200 Initiation of amendments.
A proposed amendment to the code or zoning map may be initiated by either:
A. A resolution by the planning commission to the city council;
B. A resolution of intent by the city council; or for zoning map amendments;
C. An application by one or more property owners (zoning map amendments only), or their agents, of
property affected by the proposed amendment. The amendment shall be accompanied by a legal
description of the property or properties affected; proposed findings of facts supporting the proposed
amendment, justifying the same and addressing the substantive standards for such an amendment as
required by this chapter and by the Land Conservation and Development Commission of the state. (Ord.
1989 § 1(part), 2014).
Finding CPMC 17.10.200: The Planning Commission is being asked to consider Resolution No. 891
to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council regarding proposed changes to Central
Point Municipal Code (CPMC) Chapter 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention.
Conclusion 17.10.200: Consistent.
19
Planning Department Findings Page 1 of 6
17.10.300 Major and minor amendments.
There are two types of map and text amendments:
A. Major Amendments. Major amendments are legislative policy decisions that establish by law general
policies and regulations for future land use decisions, such as revisions to the zoning and land division
ordinance that have widespread and significant impact beyond the immediate area. Major amendments are
reviewed using the Type IV procedure in Section 17.05.500.
B. Minor Amendments. Minor amendments are those that involve the application of adopted policy to a
specific development application, and not the adoption of new policy (i.e., major- amendments). Minor
amendments shall follow the Type III procedure, as set forth in Section 17.05.400. The approval authority
shall be the city council after review and recommendation by the planning commission. (Ord. 1989
§I(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006).
Finding CPMC 17.10.300.• The proposed amendments are legislative changes to land use regulations
in CPMC 8.24; Although the changes consist of corrections and minor adjustments to land use
regctlations, they guar+ as a Major Amendment and have been processed in accordance with Type
lV procedures in CPMC 17.05.500.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.300: Consistent.
17.10.400 Approval criteria.
A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve with conditions or to deny an application for a text
or map amendment shall be based on written findings and conclusions that address the following criteria:
A. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals (major amendments
only);
Finding CPHC 17.10.400 (A): The proposed amendments have been reviewed against the Statewide
Planning Goals and found to comply as follows:
Goal l- Citizen Involvement. This goal requires that all citizens be given the opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process. As evidenced by the land use noifficallons in the
newspaper on 5-22-2021, notice to DLCD on April 14, 2021 and advertisement an the City's
website (ww v.central ointore orr. out ro'ects , the 00, has duly noticed the application as
necessary to allow the opportunity for citizen participation in the public hearings scheduled with
the Planning Con►mission (6-1-2021) and City Council (6-24-2'x']21) for- the proposed tart
changes consistent with Goal 1.
Goal 2 - Land Use Planning. Goal 2 addresses the land use planning procedures in Oregon,
including the need to adopt comprehensive plans and inrplernenting ordinances based on factual
information. The proposed amendments are consistent with existing policy in the comprehensive
plan and are alined at correcting conflicts between current standards and Federal and State
guidance for bestmanagement pr aclices in floodplain management The proposed changes are
based on jiretual f► arrnation from the municipal code and guidance documents consistent with
Federal standards.
Coal 3-:4grfcullarra! Larrds. Goal 3 addresses agricultural land within rural areas. The
proposed text amendments do not affect agricultural lands or agricultural buffers that would be
required adjacent to agricultural lands outside the urban growth boundary. On this basis, Goal
3 does not apply to the proposed text amendments.
Planning Department Findings Page 2 of 6
20
Goal 4 - Forest Lands. Goal 4 addresses forest lands within rural areas. The proposed text
amendments do not affect forest lands or lands adjacent to forest lands; therefore, Goal 4 does
not apply.
Goal S - Den Sy, Scenic and Historic Areas and Natural ResotEq .Goal 5 establishes a
process for each natural and cultural resource to be inventoried and evaluated. If deemed to be
significant, local governments may preserve, allow uses that conflict with the resource, or allow a
combination of the two. In Central Point, floodplains and historic structures have been
inventoried, and ordinances have been adopted to minimize impacts to each. The proposed text
amendments identify policies and actions that can be implemented to further reduce flood losses
and provide additional protection to City residents from the dangers offlooding.
Goal 6 - Air Waler and Land ResourcesQualit_v. Goal 6 requires local comprehensive plans
and implementing ordinances to comply with state and federal regulations on air, water and land
quality resource requirements. The proposed amendments are consistent with state and federal
guidance on implementing regulations for areas within the floodplain, including the stream
channels, banks and upland areas.
Gaal 7 Areas Sub
'ect to Natural Hazards. Goal 7 requires appropriate safeguards when
planningfor development in floodplain or other areas subject to natural hazards. In Central
Point, floodplain development is regulated in accordance with CPMC 8.24, Flood Damage
Prevention. Earthquake and fire safety is a. function of building and fire codes. The proposed
amendments strengthen the standards set forth in CPMC 8.24, and would not impede or
otherwise conflict with the building code or fire code as necessary to protect against flood,
earthquake, or fire damages.
Goal 8--Recreational Needs. This goal requires communities to inventory existing parks and
recreational facilities, and to project the needed facilities to serve all populations within the
community. Amending standards and regulations for development within the floodplains of
Central Point not generate any additional need for parks and recreation services.
Goal 9 - Economy of the State. Goal 9 addresses diversification and improvement of the
economy and specifically addresses commercial and industrial land. The proposed amendments
would affect development on land within the floodplains, but the amendments are consistent with
Goal 9 as it strengthens the standards for development and reduces impacts and dangers from
flooding.
Goal 10 - Hous in . Goal 10 requires local communities to plan for and accommodate housing
needs in the City. The proposed amendments constitute minor adjustments and clarifications to
floodplain development standards. As such, the proposed text amendments are not expected to
have impacts on housing needs in the City.
Goal 11- Public Facilities and Services. Goal 11 calls for efficient planning ofpublic services
such as sewer, water, law enforcement and fire protection to assure that public services are
planned in accordance with a community's needs and capacities rather than to be forced to
respond to development as it occurs. Public, facilities and services are planned in accordance
with the Comprehensive Plan Public Facilities Element and updated master plans for water,
stormwater, etc. The proposed amendments will not affect the provision of services or generate
additional need for services not already planned for.
Planning Department Findings Page 3 of 6
21
Goal 12 — Transportation. Goal 12 aims to provide a safe, convenient and economic
transportation system. The proposed amendments constitute minor adjustments and clarifications
t0 floodplain development .standards. As such, the proposed text amendments are not expected to
have impacts an transporttrtiort facilities.
Goal 13 — Eng.=. Goal 13 has to do with conserving all forers of energy. The proposed
etmendments constitute minor adjustments and clarifications to floodplain development
standards. As such, the proposed text amendments are not expected to increase energy
utilization.
Goal 14 — Urhaadrzation. Goal 14 has to do with managing the City's growth in conjunction with
project need based on population and land use. The proposed amendments will not affect
population growth or land need; therefore, Goal 14 does not apply.
Goals IS- Applies to the Willamette Valley and does not apply to the City of'Central Point.
Goals 16-19 - Applies to coastal areas and does not affect the City of Central Point.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.404(A): Based on the nature of the proposed amendments and the findings
above, the proposed changes to CPMC 8.24 are consistent with all applicable Statewide Planning
Goals.
B. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan (major and minor
amendments);
Finding CPMC 17.10.400 (B): A review of the Central Point Comprehensive Plan identified the
fallowing relevant policies:
Citizen Involvement:
Polis 3 — Citizen In uence. Whenever possible, citizens shall be given the opportunity to be
involved in all phases of the planning process, including (1) data collection, (2) plan
preparation, (3) adoption, (4) implementation, (S) evaluation, and (6) revision.
MnLfing Citizen Involvement Polis 3 — Citizen In uence; The proposed text amendments are
being initiated by the City based on guidance from FEMA and the State of Oregon to
maintain consistency with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards and
minimum requirements in the Community Rating System (CRS). To promote awareness of the
proposed amendments, the City published notice of two (2) duly public hearings that have
been scheduled with the Planning Commission (61112021) and City Council (612412021) to
receive testimony. In addition to publishing notice in the newspaper on May 22, 2021, notice
was provided to DLCD and information was posted on the City's website
(www. central oiirtore on. ov1pro 'ects).
Conclusion Citizen Involvement Policy 3 — Citizen en: As evidenced by the City's
collaboration with the state and federal agencies and efforts to promote awareness of the
proposed amendments and public involvement process, the proposed amendment was
processed in accordance with Policy 3 for Citizen Involvement.
Polis 4 — Technical Information. The City will assure that all information used in the
preparation of the Plan or related reports is made available in an easy to understand form
and is available for review at the community library, City Hall, or other location.
Planning Department Findings Page 4 of 6
22
Findinz Citizen Involvement Policy 4 — Technical Information. The City has based the proposed
text amendments on identified code conflicts and best practices for floodplain management.
For example, DLCD provides a model ordinance that outlines the latest guidance and policy
updates for the NFIP. In addition, a representative from FEMA has reviewed the proposed
amendments to ensure consistency with federal standards.
Conclusion Citizen Involvement Poli 4 — Technical In ormation. The proposed amendment is
based on technical information related to floodplain management standards and best
management practices.
Environmental Element:
Goal 5: To ensure future growth and development are not detrimental to the quality of air and
water resources and do not contribute to urban noise pollution problems.
Finding Environmental Goal 5: The proposed amendments strengthen the standards set forth in
CPMC 8.24 in order to reduce impacts of development in the floodplains, decrease the
dangers from flooding hazards, and create a more resilient community through higher
regulatory standards.
Conclusion Environmental Goal 5: Consistent.
Flood Hazard Reduction Poli 3: Prohibiffitg activities within the 100 year flood zone which in
any way y=n vates Pood hazard by either lilting available flpod retention areas (thus
d
LsplaciLtg flood waters on to other areas or inhibitiLig flow v natural drainrr e areas. The
City shall pWare. adopt and maintain parking standards that re lett best parkitig practices
that f rrther the parking goals of the Cites
Finding Flood Hazard Reduction Poli 3: The proposed amendmen& urther strep then the
requirements for development within the 1001 zearflood zone b , addin sa a rrrecasrares
reduchLg im mets and 0-Merprohibilhng devely meat that increases the flood hazards. .411
develo menl within the Loodway that would create additional rise in good dethe are
re uired to lbilow the FEMA process for a myp thane i.e. Letter o .M Amendment
Lr oMR jj and ensure that ad
jacenl i2iWerties are not impacted.
Conclusion Flood Hazard Reduction Policy 3.: Comvistenl.
Conclusion CPMC I7.10.400(B): Based on the evaluation of applicable Comprehensive Plan
policies, the proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the Central Point Comprehensive
Plan.
C. If a zoning map amendment, findings demonstrating that adequate public services and transportation
networks to serve the property are either available, or identified for construction in the city's public
facilities master plans (major and minor amendments); and
Finding CPMC 17.10.400 (C): The proposed zoning text amendment does not include changes to the
zoning map.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(C): Not applicable.
D. The amendment complies with OAR 660-012-0060 of the Transportation Planning Rule. (Ord. 1989
§1(part), 2014; Ord. 1874 §3(part), 2006. Formerly 17.10.300(B)).
Planning Department Findings Page 5 of 6
23
Finding CPMC I Z 10.400 (D): The proposed text amendment does not involve any changes that
would affect trip generation or public transportation facilities, such as an increase in density or
parking standards.
Conclusion CPMC 17.10.400(D): Given the nature of the proposed amendments and lack of impact
to tM01c, existing or planned transportation facilities, the proposed amendment complies with the
TPR.
PART 3 — CONCLUSION
As evidenced in findings and cnnciusions provided in Part 2, the proposed zone text amendment is
consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code, including the
Statewide Planning Goals (where applicable), Comprehensive Plan, and Statewide Transportation
Planning Rule.
Planning Department Findings Page 6 of 6
24
Attachment "C"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 891
A RESOLUTION APPROVING MAJOR AMENDMENTS TO CPMC 8.24
FILE NO. ZC-21002
Applicant: City of Central Point
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2021 the Planning Commission, at a duly scheduled public hearing,
considered major amendments to Chapter 8.24 — Flood Damage Prevention of the Central Point
Municipal Code ("CPMC") as identified in Exhibit "1" — Staff Report dated June 1, 2021:
WHEREAS, it is the finding of the Planning Commission that the above referenced code amendments
comply with the approval criteria set forth in CPMC 17. 10, including the Statewide Planning Goals,
Comprehensive Plan and Transportation Planning Rule as evidenced by the Planning Department
Findings identified as Attachment `B" in the Staff Report dated June 1, 2021 (Exhibit 1)
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by
this Resolution No. 891, does hereby forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council to
approve the amendments as set forth in the Staff Report dated August 7, 2018 attached hereto by
reference as Exhibit "1" including all attachments therein, which are herein incorporated by reference.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 1 st day
of June 2021.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 1 st day of June 2021,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 891 (06-01-2021)
25
MOBILE FOOD VENDORS
26
STAFF REPORT
CENTRAL
POINT
June 1, 2021
Agenda Item: VIII -A
Planning Department
Tom Humphrey, AICP,
Community Development Director
Discussion regarding standards and regulations for Mobile Food Vendors and other vending
units, such as food trucks, trailers and carts within the City of Central Point.
Staff Source
Justin Gindlesperger, Community Planner II
Background
The Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) permits the placement and operation of mobile
vending units on private property within the Tourist and Office Professional (C-4) commercial
zoning district, as a permitted use, and within the Thoroughfare (C-5) commercial district, as a
conditional use. The CPMC does not permit the operation of mobile vending units within the
right-of-way of streets or alleys.
Discussion:
The popularity of food trucks, food carts, and mobile vending units has increased in the Rogue
Valley throughout the past few years. In the past few months, the Planning Department has
received several requests to increase the areas within the City that are available to mobile
vending. There is interest in specific properties within the Artisan Corridor along Front Street
that are for sale (the Yellow Basket property), properties with large parking areas (Poblano's
and CraterWorks), or currently vacant/undeveloped properties (Creamery property at Pine
Street & S. Haskell Street).
While 'mobile vending units' is not defined in CPMC 17.08 - Definitions, it is generally accepted
that the term includes food trucks, trailers, and carts that are moveable vehicle(s) operating as
a temporary use for the purpose of offering ready -to -eat food for sale. The use of mobile
vending units is typically divided into two (2) categories: as temporary uses on private property,
either individually or as a group or 'pod', and mobile vending in the right-of-way, usually in an
on -street parking zone.
Central Point does not permit mobile vending units within the right-of-way and applications for
units on private property would follow the site plan review process to ensure the site is
compatible with the placement of the unit and there are no safety concerns. In the C-5 zone,
27
applications for mobile vending would follow the conditional use permit process and require a
Public hearing before the Planning Commission. All mobile vending units are required to obtain
a business license to operate within City limits and must be licensed by the Jackson County
Health Department. The City does not have additional permits or inspections of mobile vending
units.
There are currently three (3) mobile vendors operating within city limits, with two (2) located
along Pine Street and one (1) unit located along S. Front Street. The zoning along Front Street
does not include mobile vending as permitted uses, units have been permitted along Front
Street as temporary uses. In reviewing these requests, the Planning Department has considered
the locations in regard to proximity to other brick -&-mortar businesses, access and circulation,
business hours, and number of days operating.
The purpose of this discussion is to identify advantages and concerns from expanding the use of
mobile vending units in Central Point and discuss additional regulations, standards and
permitting processes necessary to ensure safe and appropriate location and operation of these
units.
Issues
Despite their popularity, the use of food trucks and other mobile vending units has been limited
due to either a lack of specific regulations permitting their use or restrictions on their
placement. The American Planning Association has published guidance for communities
interested in expanding the use of mobile vending (Attachment "A"). As this publication points
out, there are many benefits to expanding the use of mobile vending units in Central Point. But
there are questions and concerns that remain, including:
m Location — where should food trucks and other mobile vendors be permitted to set up?
m Hours — how long can a food truck be open?
Duration — how long can a food truck operate from a single location?
Safety — can the use of food trucks be expanded without creating safety issues due to
fire hazards or sanitation concerns?
Attachments
Attachment "A" — Zoning Practice — Food Truck Feeding Frenzy
Action
Discuss mobile vending in Central Point.
L►.�'?
Food Truck Feeding Frenzy:
Making Sense of Mobile Food Vending
By Rodney Arroyo, AICD and /ill Bahm, ACCP
Recent economic and cultural trends show an explosion in the popularity of food
trucks, or mobile vendors, over the past several years.
According to research done by Emergent forthe
National Restaurant Association, the growth
of mobile food trucks will soar in the next five
years, generating up to $2.7 billion in revenue
nationally by 2017—up from $65o million in
2012 (Emergent Research 2012). All across the
country, cities, small towns, and suburbs are
seeing food trucks popping up, some in unex-
pected places like office and industrial parks,
where zoning ordinances typically preclude res-
taurants. Amplifying the push for food trucks
are the twin trends of "buying local" and "food
as entertainment" that are enhanced by pro-
grams such as the Great Food Truck Race on the
Food Network. While ice cream trucks and job -
site lunch wagons haven't disappeared, they
are increasingly being joined by gourmet trucks
and trucks specializing in ethnic offerings.
All across the United States, people are
exploring how mobile food vending might
29
make a difference in their lives and their com-
munities. More resources are starting to be-
come available for potential business owners.
Networks for mobile food vendors are grow-
ing; the Southern California Mobile Food Ven-
dors Association was formed in 2010 as one
of the first associations dedicated to helping
vendors breakdown barriers to business
(www.socalmfva.com). And this fall, Roam—a
first-ever industry conference for mobile food
ZONINGPRACTICE g.i3
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page z
suppliers and owners—will take place in Port-
land, Oregon.
On the worldwide stage, the World Street
Food Congress is the first of its kind to connect
and open up fresh ideas and thought leadership
in the massive and growing street -food culture
and industry throughout the world. This io-day
street -food festival was hosted in Singapore in
January 2013 and featured well-known leaders
in the food industry (www.wsfcongress.com).
Faced with inquiries from food vendors,
many communities turn to theirzoning codes,
onlyto discoverthat mobile food vending isn't
really defined and may not be permitted in the
wayvendors might like. With the approach to
regulating mobile vending varying widely in
communities, it can be hard to know where to
begin when considering if and how to accom-
modate food trucks.
WHAT IS MOBILE FOOD VENDING?
Regulatory codes for many communities rec-
ognize transient merchants—those goods and
services provided by a traveling vendor. The
typical ice cream truck would be a good example
of a transient merchant who is mobile most of
the time, stopping only when requested for a
few short minutes. Many operators oftoday's
food trucks or carts, however, are seeking more
than a few minutes on the street, sidewalk, or
parking lot, staying in place for a few hours to
serve breakfast, lunch, or dinner. In fact, when
they are located on private property, some food
trucks may be in one location for days, weeks,
or even months. It is important to make a dis.
tinction between the food vendors that are more
transient in nature, like an ice cream truck, and
those that seek to move about less frequently.
Both types of uses can offer benefits to the com-
munity, and they will each have different poten-
tial issues to regulate.
Many mobile food vendors utilize
self -driven vehicles that permit easy reloca-
tion throughout the community. However,
mobile food vending also includes trailers,
food kiosks, and food carts. Food kiosks are
temporary stands or booths that are typically
intended to sell prepared foods, including ice
cream, pretzels, and the like. Food kiosks may
be found inside a large office building or shop-
ping mall, but may also be secured for outside
use. Some communities, like Maui County,
Hawaii, allow a variety of products to be sold
at a kiosk, provided certain standards are met
(§30.o8.o3c). While temporary in structure,
food kiosks are often stationary with a defined
location. Food carts allow the vendor to sell
from outside the moveable unit and are often
used to sell fresh fruits and vegetables. Typi-
cally, the food in kiosks and carts is prepared
elsewhere and kept cold or hot in the unit.
The city of New York encourages "green carts"
that offer fresh produce in certain areas of the
city and has special regulations for these uses
(www.nyc.gov/greencarts).
In communities across the U.S., mobile
food vendors are seeking permits to start these
innovative businesses. They often run into road-
blocks at city hall, because while many zoning
ordinances include provisions for temporary
30
uses, most do not contain current definitions
for mobile food vending nor do they include any
standards that specifically relate to vending and
the issues that may arise. The net result in many
communities, intentional or unintentional, is a
prohibition on mobile food vending.
THE PROS AND CONS OF MOBILE
FOOD VENDING
Over the past few years, most of the economy
has been struggling and the workforce has been
challenged to adapt. With laid-offworkers try-
ing to reinvent themselves and new immigrants
looking for opportunities, the number of people
starting new businesses is rising. Mobile food
vending seems, for some, like a low-cost way to
wade into the pool of business ownership. There
are a number of reasons why communities may
elect to sanction mobile food vending:
• It provides an opportunity to increase jobs
and businesses. The cost of starting a food truck
business can start at $25,000, where a tradition-
al bricks -and -mortar establishment may start at
$300,000, according to the National Restaurant
Association (Emergent Research zoiz),
• It offers opportunities to provide food choic-
es where zoning precludes restaurants. Tradi-
tional zoning codes tend to restrict the uses
permitted in office and industrial districts, only
allowing uses that narrowly meet the intent of
those districts. Office and industrial parks, in
particular, are often isolated from the rest of
the community, requiring employees to drive to
retail and restaurant areas. In addition, some
communities may not have access to variety of
ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page3
healthy, fresh foods, and therefore decide to
encourage such food vendors in certain neigh-
borhoods by relaxing requirements. New York's
green carts initiative allows additional permits
to be issued over the city's defined limit to
mobile food vendors that offer fresh produce in
underserved neighborhoods, and Kansas City,
Missouri, offers reduced permit fees for mobile
food vendors in city parks that meet certain
nutritional standards (Parks and Recreation
Vending Policy 4.7.o8).
• It can increase activity in struggling busi-
ness districts by creating a dynamic environ-
ment where people gather around the avail-
ability of new and fresh food. The economy has
taken a toll on businesses over the past several
years. Those that are hanging on in some
areas find that their neighboring buildings or
businesses are vacant. Food trucks can be a
way to enliven an area, generating traffic for
existing businesses and possibly spinning off
new business activity. The restaurant industry
is evolving to meet the demands of patrons
who are looking for locally grown, sustainable,
healthy, and fast options for dining. When food
trucks use social media to communicate about
their location schedules, it can build up a cer-
tain level of excitement and anticipation that
can make a positive social impact. In addition,
the rising trend of "cart pods" and "food truck
rallies" brings multiple mobile food vendors to
one location, creating a festive atmosphere in
an area fora short time.
• They signal to other potential businesses
that the community is adapting to the evolving
economy and supporting entrepreneurship.
Mobile food trucks are a new way of doing
business; in these early years, communities
that anticipate the demand from businesses
and consumers may also find that this flexibil-
ity signals receptivity to new business models.
• They area way for restaurateurs to test the
local market for future bricks -and -mortar facili-
ties. Mobile Food trucks offer opportunities to
interact with a potential market, to test recipes
and pricing, and see if the restaurant fits with
the community. All across the United States
there are examples of food truck businesses
evolving into permanent establishments, includ-
ing EI Camion ("the truck") in northwest Seattle
that has recently opened a restaurant and bar in
the Ballard neighborhood after several years of
experience with its two mobile food units. Tor-
chy's Tacos in Austin, Texas, started with a food
truck and now has eight bricks -and -mortar res-
taurants in Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Hous-
ton—and two more open ingthis year. The Lunch
Room in Ann Arbor, Michigan, plans to open its
bricks -and -mortar location soon, using social
media to solicit fans of its existing "Mark's
Carts" to become investors in the restaurant.
Along with these potential benefits can
come community impacts and possible con-
flicts. Some of the challenges associated with
went through an extensive research and public
input process, surveying their local chamber
of commerce and meeting with prospective
mobile food vendors, residents groups, and
restaurant owners. Their resulting ordinance
language responds to the needs and concerns
ofthe community (Longmont zoic).
0MOTRR CITY STREET EATS
A RAi�EA[IiB Af IAfTAQ flEiH011'S FINEST FnpR TAOCIS
s�_ GOME
'00)
C*
��X NS'�
ADDRESSING AREAS OF
CONCERN THROUGH ZONING
Many communities are up-
dating their codes to accom-
modate or regulate mobile
vending. In June 2012 Grand
Rapids, Michigan, included the
following statement of intent in
a new set of mobile food vend-
ing provisions:
Employment and small busk
ness growth in the city can
occur while providing a broad
range of food choices to the
public through careful allow-
ances for temporary conces-
sion sales. The provisions of
this section are intended to
prevent predatory practices on
bricks -and -mortar restaurants
while allowing for new food
vending opportunities that can
add vitality to vacant parking
lots and underutilized sites...
(§5.9.32.K).
Other cities, including
Y
Phoenix, Arizona (§624.D.87);
It -
f Chapel Hill, North Carolina
J (§§io-66-74); and Fort Worth,
Texas (§5.406)—just to name
a few—adopted regulations in
2012 to allow mobile vending
or food trucks. Chapel Hill's
provisions note that allowing food trucks will
"promote diversification ofthe town's economy
and employment opportunities and support
the incubation and growth of entrepreneurial/
start-up businesses" but also that food trucks
pose "unique regulation challenges."
While specific approaches vary from place
to place, communities interested in adding or
updating regulations for mobile food vending
should start by defining the uses and then
consider each ofthe following questions:
• Where in the community should such uses
be permitted?
• How long should a food truck be permitted
to stay in one location?
Q Food truck gatherings are increasingly common in
communities with extensive food truck offerings.
mobile food trucks might include problems
with maintenance, trash, parking, noise, and
vehicular and pedestrian circulation. In addi-
tion, some restaurateurs may be threatened
by this new competition and try to prevent
mobile food vending. Food trucks also have
their own operational challenges, includ-
ing dealing with unpredictable weather and
maintaining an appropriate inventory despite
limited storage.
The best way to understand and manage
the pros and cons of rood trucks in individual
communities is to solicit public input and
dialogue about the needs and wants of the
community. For example, Longmont, Colorado,
31
ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION p09e4
• Are these mobile units just for food sales, or
can other goods be sold as well?
• Does the community want to increase activity?
• How can the zoning ordinance address up-
keep and maintenance?
• When can food trucks operate?
• How are visitor parking and circulation ac-
commodated?
• How are these uses reviewed and permitted?
• What do vendors and their customers want
orneed?
• How is signage for the mobile unit regulated?
• How is the site lit to ensure safety?
Location
It is common to allow mobile food vending in
commercial districts, but some communities
add industrial districts orspecify mixed use
districts. Start with the community's comprehen-
sive plan—is there a need or desire to increase
activities in specific parts ofthe community? Are
there concerns about the impact ofsingle-pur-
pose districts (especially office and industrial)
on connectivity, traffic congestion, and business
In consideration for existing facilities,
some communities decide that there should be
a minimum distance between mobile units and
bricks -and -mortar restaurants. Some communi-
ties try to limit the impact on adjacent residen-
tial uses through a distance requirement or by
restrictions on hours of operation. Planners
should test these locational restrictions to
ensure that realistic business opportunities
exist. EI Paso, Texas, repealed its locational
requirement of 1,000 feet from bricks -and -mor-
tar establishments following a 2011 lawsuit to
provide sufficient opportunities for mobile food
vendors (Berk and Leib 2012). Attorneys Robert
Frommer and Bert Gall argue that separation
from other establishments is not necessary and
that food truck regulations should be narrowly
tailored to legitimate health, safety, and wel-
fare concerns, not regulate competition (2012).
The American Heart Association has also
looked at location issues related to mobile
food vending. They report that several commu-
nities across the country prohibit mobile Food
vendingwithin a certain distance of schools (or
nity and often is related to where mobile food
vending is permitted. Some communities allow
food trucks on public property but prohibit
overnight parking. Where on -street parking is at
a premium, communities may consider allow-
ing food trucks to utilize public parking spaces
for the same duration as other parked vehicles.
Chicago requires food trucks to follow posted
meter time restrictions, with no more than two
hours in one location. In addition, the city also
limits mobile food vending to two hours on
private property N-8).
In contrast, some communities allow food
trucks on private property for up to 3o days or
more atone location. For example, Grand Rapids
allows concession sales for up to 200 Consecu-
tive days over 12 calendar months (§5.9.32.K.6).
Regulations like this may impact vendors
in terms of the types of food that can be sold
and the manner in which they are prepared,
especially when preparation is done on-site.
Communities may wish to considerwhether the
allowed duration is reasonable for food ven-
dors as well as adjacent property owners.
retention and recruitment? Are there any areas
in the community where the population is un-
derserved by food choices? Planners can take
these concerns to the community and invite
residents and business owners to share their
thoughts on where mobile food vending might
be appropriate and desirable.
Some communities make a distinction
between vending on public property, which
often requires a license but is not regulated by
zoning, and private property, which often re-
quires a temporary use permit and is regulated
by the zoning ordinance. When permitted on
private property, zoning standards should re-
quire evidence of property owner approval.
at school release times) to limit the sometimes
nutritionally challenged food choices avail-
able (2012). Woodland, California, prohibits
mobile food vending within 300 feet of a
public or private school, but will allow them on
school property when approved by the school
(§14-15). It a different twist, the Minneapolis
Public School System introduced a food truck
program this year to offer free nutritious meals
to students during the summer months at four
different sites in Minneapolis (Martinson 2013).
Duration
The length oftime food trucks are permitted
to stay in one place varies widely by commu-
32
Goods Available for Sale
Some communities, like College Station, Texas,
are very specific that the goods sold from mo-
bile vending to be food related (§4-20). This
is often borne of a desire to start with mobile
vending on a limited basis t0 gauge its impact.
As mobile food trucks become more prevalent,
surely people will explore the ideas of start-
ing other types of businesses in this format.
Communities may wish to consider the ques-
tions raised earlier about location and assess
whether or not it makes sense to allow other
goods in addition to food to be sold in desig-
nated areas. For example, Ferndale, Michigan,
allows a variety of wares to be sold by a mobile
ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I Po9e 5
vendor, including apparel, jewelry, household
goods, and furnishings (§§7-73-82). That
might be just the place for book publisher
Penguin Group (USA) to take its recently intro-
duced first mobile bookstore, which aims to
make books accessible where big box retailers
aren't located (Edsall 2013).
Number of Units in One Location
Some communities that are getting on board
with mobile food vending have started allow-
ing them to congregate for certain events and
activities. For example, Royal Oak, Michigan,
started a food truck "rally" at their indoor farm-
ers market during colder months. It is a good
way to utilize the facility as well as provide
entertaining food options for city residents.
It has now become a great family event every
month year-round, with musical entertainment,
bouncy houses, and face painting. The city lim-
its the rally to no more than Lo different trucks
with a variety of cuisine for the whole family.
units to function on private property as a
single business. To address potential negative
impacts, each mobile food court must have its
own on-site manager, who is responsible for
the maintenance of the area 05.406).
Trash
The type of standards for trash removal and
upkeep will vary depending on the location and
duration of the vending. Most communities
require waste receptacles for every mobile food
vending unit and some further require waste to
be removed from a site daily. Keep in mind that
where communities allow seating along with
the mobile food unit, people will generate more
trash on-site than in situations where there is
no seating provided and people take their food
(and trash) to go.
Hours of operation
Some communities limit hours of operation to
around lunchtime (e.g., 1O:3o a.m. until 3:30
trucks on private property, communities typi-
cally require the vendor to ensure that there
is sufficient parking available for its use and
any other uses on the site, including the space
taken up by the unit itself. Some cities allow
public parking areas to be utilized for food
trucks, and may even allow metered parking
spaces to be used provided the related meter
fees are paid. For example, Minneapolis al-
lows a mobile vendor to park at no more than
two metered spaces, as long as they are not
short-term spaces and are not located within
Loci feet of an existing restaurant or sidewalk
cafe—unless the restaurant owner gives con-
sent (§188.485.c.7).
Licenses and Permits
Most communities require permits or licenses
regardless of whether the trucks operate on
public or private property. It is also common
for the community to reference compliance
with other codes, particularly state or local
hPai+h —a— These other codes can impact
erate. For example, California's
Health and Safety Code re-
quires trucks to have hand -
washing stations if food is
prepared in the truck, but
does not require them on
trucks selling only prepack-
aged foods like frozen des-
serts (§114311).
Some communities
cap the number of licenses
available for food trucks to
limit their impact, but many
others do not. Grand Rapids
)orary use permit, subject to
ission approval, and gives
ansideration (§5.9.32.K.18),
including an assessment asking " [wjill the
proposed stand, trailer, wagon orvehicle
contribute
to the general aesthetic ofthe business dis-
trict and include high quality materials and
finishes?"
According to Market Master Shelly Mazur, "It's
nice to be able to offer a family -friendly event
in a climate -controlled buildingwith renovated
bathrooms and seating."
On the other hand, in its nolo ordinance,
the city of Zillah, Washington, banned mobile
food vending altogether, declaring it a "nui-
sance," and finding that "when mobile ven-
dors congregate in the same area, the height-
ened intensity of use negatively impacts the
surrounding area, particularly by increased
trash" (§8.32). Fort Worth tackled this issue
head-on, defining a group of food trucks as a
"mobile food court" when two or more mobile
vending units congregate. They allow these
P.m.), and others allow sales from early in the
morning to late in the evening (e.g., 7 a.m. until
Lo p.m.). Some communities place no time
limits on these operations in the zoning regula-
tions. Again, consider where these units will
be permitted and the potential conflicts with
adjacent uses.
Parking and Circulation
Given the mobility of these vendors, they by
necessity are typically located in parking areas.
Whether in public spaces or a private parking
lot, it is important to ensure sufficient parking
for existing uses to prevent an undue burden
on bricks -and -mortar establishments. For food
33
Site Amenities
Some communities specify that no tables
or chairs are permitted, or if they are, then
sanitary facilities are also required. There
may be flexibility in the permitted arrange-
ments for such facilities (for example, hav-
ing permission to use such facilities within
a reasonable distance of the mobile unit).
Frisco, Texas, prohibits connections to po-
ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13
AMERICAN PLANNING A55OCIATION I page 6
REFERENCES
• American Heart Association. 2012. "Mobile Food Vending near Schools • Emergent Research. 2012. "Food Trucks Motor into the Mainstream."
Policy Statement." Available atwww.heart.org/idc/groups/heart- Intuit, December. Available athtt
p://network.intuit.com/wp-content
public /@wcm/@adv/documents/downloadable/ucm_446658.pdf. /uploads/2012/12/Intuit-Food-Trucks-Report.pdf.
• Berk, Keith, and Alan Leib. 2012. "Keeping Current: UCC—Food Truck Regu- • Longmont (Colorado), City of. zoic. Mobile Food Vendors Longmont
lations Drive Controversy." Business Low Today, May. Available at http:// Municipal Code Amendment. Planning & Zoning Commission Com-
apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/bit/content/2012/o5/keepingcurrent.pdf.
munication, June zo, 2011. Available at www.ci.longmont.co.us
• Edsall, Larry. 2o%3, "food Trucks Inspire Mobile Bookstore," Detroi[News, /plan ning/pz/agendas/zoii/documents/final_m obilefoodvendors
Julylt.Availableatwww.detroitnews.com/articie/2o1307tt1AU'r0o3 pd f.
1307120040/1121/autoo 6/Food- fro cks-Inspire.mobi le -bookstore.
• Martinson, Gabrielle, 2013, "In its First Summer, District's Food
• Frommer. Robert, and Bert Gall. 2012. Food truck Freedom. Washing- Truck is a Success." The Journal, July 16. Available at www
tun, D.C.: Institute for Justice. Available atwwwJj.org/images .journaImpls.com/news-feed/in-its-first-summer-districts-food-
/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/vending/foodtruckfreedom.pdf. truck -is -a -success.
table water, requiring mobile food vendors to
store their water in an internal tank. The city
also requires vendors to be located within 5o
feet of an entrance of a primary building, and
drive-through service is expressly prohibited
63.02.o1.A(20)). King County, Washington,
requires that all mobile food vending in the
county be located within zoo feet of a usable
restroom (§5.34)•
Signage
Some communities use their existing sign regula-
tions, but others tailor standards For mobile units.
In Michigan, both Grand Blanc Township (§7.4.9.0
and Kalamazoo (§§25-63-68) allow one sign on
the mobile vending unit itself, but do not allow
any other signage. This is fairly common. In many
cases, the truck itself essentially functions as one
big sign with colorful graphics. Additionally, many
mobile food vendors now use social media to get
out the word regarding the time and place they will
set up shop, potentially reducing the need for ad-
ditional signage beyond that on the unit itself.
Lighting
Lighting is not as commonly addressed as other
issues, especially if mobile food vending unit
is located in an existing developed area, but it
is likely presumed that other applicable lighting
requirements appropriate to the location are
to be followed. Consider adjacent uses and the
impact of light trespass and glare. For example,
Grand Blanc Township requires mobile food
vending units to be lit with available site light-
ing. No additional exterior lighting is allowed
unless permitted by the zoning board of appeals
upon finding that proposed exterior lighting
mounted to the mobile vending unit will not spill
over on to adjacent residential uses as mea-
sured at the property line (§7.4.9.F.10).
TESTING, FOLLOW-UP, AND ENFORCEMENT
One of the nice things about mobile food vending
is that it is really easy for a community to put a toe
in the water and test the impact of regulations on
mobile food vendors, other community business-
es, and the public, and to adjust the regulations
as appropriate. The Metropolitan Government of
Nashville -Davidson County, Tennessee, initiated a
test phase beginning April 2012 that will provide
evaluative data for a successful mobile food ven-
dor program. The program will initially be operated
under a temporary permit issued by the Metro
Public Works Permit Office fortwo specified zones,
the downtown core and outside of it. Oakland,
California, has a pilot program for "Food Vending
Group Sites," defined as "the stationary operation
of three (3) or more 'mobile food vendors' clus.
tered together on a single private property site,
public property site, or within a specific section of
public right-of-way" (§5.51).
Before embarking on extensive zoning re-
writes, review the suggested considerations with
the community to anticipate and plan for appropri-
ate ways to incorporate this use in a reasonable
way. Mobile food vending is on the rise all overthe
country, from urban sites to the suburbs. When
regulated appropriately, mobile food vending can
bring real benefits to a community, includingjobs,
new businesses, fresh food, and vitality.
VOL. 30, NO.9
Zoning Practice is a monthly Publication of the American Planning Association. Subscriptions are available for $95 (U.S.) and S%2o (foreign).
W. Paulfarmer, r',ucr, Chief Executive Officer; David Rouse, Alcr, Managing Director of Research and Advisory Services.
Zoning Practice [ISSN 1548-0135) is produced at APA. Jim Schwab, ucr, and David Modey,,ucr, Editors; Julie Von Bergen, Assistant Editor; Lisa Barton, Design
and Production.
Missingand damaged print issues: Contact Customer Service, American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1200, Chicago, IL 6o6oi (312-431-
9-1oo or customerservice@planning.org) witirin go days of the publication date. Include the name of the publication, year, volume and issue number or month,
and your name, mailing address, and membership number if applicable.
Copyright 42013 by the American Planning Association, 205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite i2oo, Chicago, IL 6o601-5927. The American Planning Association also
has offices at -1030 tsth St.. NW, Suite 75o West, Washington. DC 20005-1503; www.planning.org.
Aft rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying,
recording, or by any Information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writingfrom the American Planning Association.
Printed on recycled paper, including 50-70% recycled fiber and so%pastconsumerwaste.
ZONINGPRACTICE 9.13
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION I page 7
34