HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet -- June 6, 1995Y
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
June 6, 1995- 7:00 p.m.
Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 322
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Chuck Piland -Jan Dunlap, Herb Farber, Candy Fish, Randy Graves, Karolyne
Johnson, and Valerie Rapp
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
i - z A. Review and approval of May 16, 1995 Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSIlVESS
3 - 24 A. Public Hearing -Review and determination regarding Site Plan for
Commercial Office Building on southeast corner of Pine and Seventh Streets
(Applicant: Karolyne Johnson)
25 - 34 B. Public Hearing -Review and determination regarding Site Plan for zoning
variance for reduction of setback at 537 Laurel located between-Fifthand
Sixth Streets (Applicant: Shannon Lenz) - - -"
35 - 50 C. Review and recommendation relating to Zoning Text Amendment to various
sections of CPMC pertaining to side and front setbacks on corner lots
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 1995 -Page One
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m.
II: ROLL CALL -Those present were: Chuck Piland, Herb Farber, Candy Fish,
Karolyne Johnson and Valarie Rapp. Jan Dunlap had called to state that she
would not be able to attend. Randy Graves did not attend.
III. CORRESPONDENCE -
1. George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator distributed to each of the
Planning Commissioners, the Agenda forthe nextTransportation Meeting
held by COG for May 23, 1995.
2.' George Rubaloff distributed to each of the Planning .Commissioners, his
Memorandum of 'May 16, 1995 and the :Request for Review and
Resolution of 'Intention for an amendment of Central Point City
Ordinances which would change the provisions for the side yard
setbacks on cornerlots from 20 feet to 10 feet.
George Rubaloff stated that if the 10 foot setback provision was put into effect,
there should also be a provision that would require the site triangle rule to drive
the size of the setback.
Noel Moore, Developer, demonstrated the Medford .City requirements for
setback and stated that the CC&R's in his subdivisions controlled placement
fences to avoid being in the way of vision clearance. - w
yPS• Fish ves• Johnson ves• and Rapp ves and the Motion carried
unanimously.
IV. MINUTES
A. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Aprii 18, 1995 Planning
Commission Minutes as corrected (by Jackson County. Commissioner
Rapp seconded the Motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Farber abstain, fish, yes;
Johnson, yes; and Rapp yes, and the Motion.carried.
.~
t`
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
May 16, 1995 -Page Two
B. Commissioner Fish moved to approve the May 2, 1995 Planning
Commission Minutes as written. Commissioner Johnson seconded the
Motion: ROLL CALL. VOTE:: Farber, yes; Fish, yes; Johnson, yes and
Rapp, abstain. The Motion carried.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES -None
VI. BUSINESS
A. Review and approval of Final Plat Application for Sowell: Land Partition
located in the general vicinity of Marilee Street. and Isaac Street, also
known as 3363 Marilee (372W11D TL 2500) (Applicant: Noel Moore).
Herb Farber declared a Conflict of Interest at the surveyor for the project, and
took a seat in the audience.
George Rubaloff reviewed his Memorandum of May 12, 1995, including the
Discussion. lie entered the following items into the record by reference: The
location map, unsigned copy of Resolution No. 318, Copy of Approved
Tentative Plan, Final Plat Application and Public Works Report, dated May 3,
4995. He also stated that all conditions of the Tentative Plan had been met.
Commissioner Johnson moved that the~aoorove Resolution 321 for the Final
`PI f~Apolication for land Partition located on the northwest corner of Isaac Way
and Marilee Street (Sowell) Commissioner Fish Seconded the Motion. ROLL
('ALL VOTE• Fish ves• Johnson ves and Rapp ves and the Motion carried
unanimously.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS -None
VIII. ADJOURNMENT - Commissioner Farber. moved that .the meeting adjourn,
Commissioner Rapp seconded the Motion, and ail said Aye, and the meeting
was adjourned at 7:27 p.m.
2
~,
STAFF REPORT
TO: -.~ /Central Point Planning Commission DATE: 6 2-95
FROM: 1/IWGeorge Rubaloff, Planning Administrator
TOPIC: 1N~11I Public Hearing -Review and Determination of Site Plan
Application for Proposed Commercial Office Building on
Southeast-comer of East Pine Street and South Seventh
Streets (Applicant: Karolyne Johnson)
Back rground
The application and decision criteria is described within Exhibit A of this report:
Notice of Public Hearing.
Review Highlight
CPMC 17.72.040 (B) requires the city to base approval or denial of site plans upon
ingress and egress points which aze designed so as to improve and to avoid interference
with the traffic flow on public streets. CPMC 17.72.Q40 (F) requires the city to base
approval or denial of site plans upon a site plan complying with all city ordinances and
regulations.
CPMC 15.40.010 states that all public works improvements shall be constructed in
accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. The proposed access into the
pazking area from South Seventh Street does not conform to Table K-1 of the City's
Uniform Standards for Public Works Construction. Table K-1 requires spacing between
commercial access and a street intersection to be the farthest distance od the lot away ,,,,
from the intersection. The basis for this standard is to create maximum storage or
stacking space for vehicles at street intersections, particulazly for turning movements
entering the site and for vehicles leaving the site.
Conclusion
The proposed site plan does not meet city standards relating to placement of driveway
access and should therefore be denied. The developer may submit a revised plan which
conforms to city standards. The revised plan could be reviewed by the Planning
Commission during a continued hearing. A revised plan will be subject to staff review.
xhibits
Exhibit A - Notice of Public Hearing
Extubit B - Mailing List for Notice 100 ft radius (by reference)
3
Exhibit C - Assorted Maps'
Exhibit D - Application (folded drawings in
Commissioners' envelope)
Exhibit E - Public Works Department Review dated
June 1, 1995_..
Exhibit F - .Public Safety Department Review. dated
June 2, 1995
Exhibit G - Public Works Standards relating to spacing
between driveway access and intersections
EXHIBIT
155 South Second Street
Central Point, OR 97502
(503! 6643324
THE HEART OF THE
ROGUE RIVER VALLEY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date of Notice: May 17, 1995
George Rubaloff
Planning Administrator
sandy Lommel
AdministratWe~
Planning secretary
Hearing Date: Tuesday, June 6, 1995
Time: 7:00 PM (approximate)
Place:- Central Point City Council Chambers
155 South Second Street, Central Point,
Oregon
NATURE OF HEARINGS
Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will
conduct a public hearing to review a Site Plan Application for construction of a
commercial office building within the City's Tourist and Office Professional District
(C-4 Zone).
The proposed commercial office building is planned fora .18 acre site, located on the
southeast corner of East Pine Street and South Seventl- Street, also known as Tax Lot
7200 of Jackson County Tax Assessor Map Page 37 2W 2CC.
The proposed project features a 1600 square foot, single-story commercial office
building. On-site improvements provide for paved parking spaces including accessible
parking for disabled persons, landscaped grounds and pedestrian walkways.
The applicant and owner of record is ICarolyae Johnson and the agent of record is the
Tom Malot Construction Company, Inc.
('I~i'I'EIZiA FOR DECISION
The requirements for approval of Site Plan Applications are set forth in Chapter 17 of
the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to Tourist and Office Professional District,
General Zoning Regulations, Off-street Parking and Loading, Site Plan, Landscaping
and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed is accordance to the City's
Public Works Standards. and regulations in the Central Point Municipal Code which
relate to public improvements.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person interested in wmmenting on the proposed land use may
submit written comments up until the close of the hearing scheduled for
Tuesday, June 6,1995.
5
/~
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the hearing to the Central.
Point Planning Department, Room 214, 155 South Second Street, Central
Point, Oregon 97502, attention, George Rubaloff.
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal of the decision shall be .
raised prior to the close of the hearing scheduled .for Tuesday, .June 6,
1995 or prior to a specific date. to which. the hearing may be continued.
4. Testimony and written comments about the proposed land use should be
stated clearly to the Planning Commission. Any testimony and written
comments about the land use proposal must be related to the criteria set
forth above.
5. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for
public review at the Central Point Planning Department, Room 214,
155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are
available at 15 cents per page,
6. For additional information, the public may eontact George Rubaloff in
the Planning Department at (503) 664-3324.
CiiMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the public hearing, the Planning Commission will review the applications, and
technical staff reports, hear testimony-from the applicant, proponents, and opponents
and. hear arguments on the application. At the conctusion of the review hearing, the
Planning Commission may approve or deny the Site Plan -for the proposed Commercial
Office Building..
City regulations provide that We Central Point City Council be informed about all `~
Planning Commission decisions. The Council may, on its own motion, no later than
the regularly scheduled Council meeting following the decision date, call for a review
of the Planning Commission decision. Any party aggrieved by the action of the
Planning Commission may request a review of such action by the City Council-by-.~iling
a written appeal to the city no more than seven days after the date the city .mails the
notice of We decision.
ATTENTION MORTGAGEE, LIENHOLDER, VENDOR QR SELLER
If you receive this notice, please promptly forward it to the purchaser ofthe property
located in the vicinity of this land use proposal.
6
c
'~'C;
~~
M-1 ~~
2~
!~`
=-~ ~
// /. ~ o, ~ o r ~
7~ ~' U~ 3 ~
B e~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~: s . ~ , ~, 2 . ,9
W
tt~ t~ O~ ~ ~
im 6 9
~ /fig ~ / o~ `x ~ 6v
V .r ~_ p S' vAR ~ / a,~
\\J/ ll~~ ~>~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~} ~ ~ ~ Y'L ~~
Y
~y v
,~ ._
v 5
6 ~/ y 7'
~ d
A` / I '
F ~~ a~ y
s. to ~?
~~~ ` y~ ~sF, s: e.
`' ~~ U9 `b
i ~„ \ .e
;.- --~
M
M,
.~ . y
~~..r
o yr
z ., ~ ~ y
* ~
„ J S
i. \+~~
_ ~,
-_ ~F
~ -_ "~ ~ 6
.`'-9,p t
~.. :'~i.
`QI~p~ ! \~ YdJ
.~ \
p 2
_O o
~,. ~ra
O ~ ~crs~
Q~
DO ~ R ~~`~
y, ~ ~`b
A
~t ~
Ob ~cp
,1, C.B.
~~ S I
O S~ X 1259.0 ,
C.9.
.. .f~~P6 a O a
'QpP 3-q 12
* c.e. X260 Q
`~
1 PARKING X
C.B.
1
X
/ SJ` PAVED O
/ ~ PARKING
Q \* /
L~ ~ \V / M
' ~ * x
x Izsl.a 2 ~
\~\„ * O X 1
\\ 1
. ~ ~ SSG ~,~ ~ V • x X
x
\ ~.a / X a ^
.8 ~ X~~
~ ~ ~.a. o ~, .~ Q
MH. PVD. %
B•Oy' PARKING %
Q G
,~ .I, pP~,d>,
PARKIN G.?
PARKING l./
0.
lT~ 0J~0 O X
126X. -~
H X 2
/ /~ X ~ ~ z ~
/ + c.
/ Q r
9,.....
/~ M 1271.6 %
\ r ~ M.H. p ~~
F 1265.2 OO
X~
G X
/* .. O
(~ C.
C. a, X OI O 1/o OP. C. X X - X
X
c
p ' X X---__
~ ,X
+ + ~O
0 / .. I~~
+ y
~* P ~' ~ ~ U ~ ~ x (~~O x
~~ /, O v~
O ° to C
~ + 0 ~: Q ~~ ~X x
~ T-ff 95 //~
SITE PLAN REVIEW~APPLIC~~IV~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPAR f~~x ~~,
1 APPLICANTINFORMATION ~ MAY 41995 ~~
Name: CITY OF CE .
Addreac 7S1 U F P St ~ TIME
Chy; 1~r'{y 1 P . 4- State: 6+" ~~^ ZlpCode: 97 oA
Telephone: Business: ~ ~~ - r^ ca Residence: ~~~
2. AGENT INFORMATION ~ M ~ 0 R~ Q7st~y
Name:_'~!D f-4 : MAIO~- ~.C~S-~' Co, cr l1G
Address:,_._.I•$~ M i~~C 1i~1. Vii' .. 9 ~~}\!~.j
Cky ~V.•• "T~ ate: l fCPG 1~.1 ZIp VWB: -u..T-ZfT ..
Telephone:eusiness:.$t53 CvG:4^.~~S~RaskleVnce:_ __. _. _'_ _ _. ~:,tr
'ca..3'arc... -.~ _ .
3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One)
Name•
Address.
CkY: -State: Zip Code:
Telephone: Suslness: Reskance:
4. PROJECTDESCRIPTION
TypeolDevebpmenk
Township:.~LRange•zW Sedbn:2~Taz t(s): J2nn"
Zoning
Number of Dwelling Units::
Gross FborArea:
Number of Paddng Spaces:
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
ThisAppllcatbnForm
~Ske Plan Dmwn to Scale (10 copies)
Gd Landscape and Inigalbn Plan (3 copies)
~ Reduced Copies (81/2" x.117 of the Ske
Plan, Suildirq Elevatbns and Landscape Plans
(f COPY Each)
[J AppgpUon Fee • ~ (5200)
[~ Legal DesalpUon
Wrtlten Auttadty from Property Owner q Agent
In Appkcatbn Process
6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ASOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE -DEBT OF MY
KNOWLEDGE. ,
I cenky that I ant the: ~ Property Owner or ^ Authorized Agent of the Owner
of the proposed, pro)ed she.
Signature -xn~aTb~ - ~.~1. Date. N -y -9 c
If anyy wetlands exist on the site, it is the applicant's responsl611ity to apply for a permit to ~
D(vfs)on of Stafe Lands before anY s(te work beans.
~;~'A~
~ o
a
'~ P.6~a1 m ~
a~ Q
1 ~t+ ¢
~ W VY
U a _
•x!
_
.
O.
}
F ~
U 1- ~
a
c
b
r_
m
O
~i
LY
u
H
n
u
n
a
~ d
4$ e
C-
3 g$Z
c $~
~n~oy u
~~~bl~
d gCj O M Cc'
~YV Pa
~~~W _
~Uv~l~- ~tV
(nz
~1!
V
O
goy
b~~ 4
h
ry~~
~~
13~b1S 3NId
J
U
W
~~%
,^.~`°
Zo°~ ~.
0
N~z~ . a°
o~~
s ~~ ~8~3~c~
h.~ S'no ~
X9'0 ~~'~i~5 ° g'
ITV ~F~~%V ~IV
Z I Z
N 1iI N
U ~ U
C ~l
"tires
~
8
',.
°
~ ~
$9¢¢~
~
~ Til
.
..
2 a~.
o
~
N
N
yC ~~
9
f
!` ~ c
a
~ 1i
W ~~
•
~~ i~ ~
~~
w
- PUBL/C WORKS DEPARTMENT -
S/TE PLAN REV/EW
STAPP(REPORT
Date: June 1, 1995
Project: Site Plan Review
Project #: PV1/ 95015
Zone:. C-4
# of Lots:. I Lot as noted below
No. of
Structures 1 Office Building
Applicant: Karolyne Johnson
724 E. Pine Street
Central Point OR 97502
(503) 664-1252
Agent: Tom Malot Construction Co.,lnc.
150 Manzanita Street
Central Point OR 97502
(503) 664-1258
Engineer: None. Specified
Plans
Prepared
By: Same as Agent
Location: T37S, R2W, WM Section 2CC, TL 7200
Type of Land
Use Action: Site Plan Review
'Reviewed
By,: Paul W. Worth -Public Works Technician
E%HIBIT E ~~
12
Site Plan Review
Johnson Office Building
May 16, 1995 -Page Two
I. STREET IMPROVEMENTS:
Includes: Street sub-grade, street base, street paving, street lighting, traffic
control/delineating improvements, curbs/gutters, safety improvements,
ingress/egress improvement, off-street parking, delivery truck access,
traffic requirements, sidewalk, and bikeways.
A. Existing Conditions:
1. Street Name -East Pine Street MA-01
Desc~iotion
Existing Conditions
-Right of Way
-Street Width
-Moving Lanes
-Parking Lanes
-Traffic Volume
-Sidewalks
-Street Lights
-Bikeways
-Bikelanes
80' (Property to Property)
64' (Curb to Curb)
4
2
12,000 VT/D(5/19/93)
Yes
No
No
Jurisdiction-City
Future Requirements
100' -110 (Comp.Plan Std.)
84' {Comp.Plan Std.)
4-6
0-2
10,000-40,000 VT/D
Yes
Yes
Yes
2. Street Name -South Zfh Street LS-082 Jurisdiction-City
Description Existing Conditions Future Requirements
-Right of Way 60' (Property to Property) 60'
-Street Width 36' (Curb to Curb) 36'
-Moving Lanes 2 2
-Parking Lanes 2(not delineated) 2
-Traffic Volume 7?VT/D <2500
-Sidewalks Yes (Eastside) Yes
-Curb & Gutter Yes Yes
-Street Lights No Yes
-Bikeways No No
e~
Site Plan Review
Johnson Office Building
May 16, 1995 -Page Three
B. App/icant's Required Conditions -See Exhibit "A" Conditions.
1. CPMC 12.02, 17.72 -Street Improvements:
a. Standard 12.02.010 Required: The City finds and
determines that the construction of buildings or other development
of property within the City directly results in the increased use of
the City's streets and street-related infrastructure, such as
sidewalks and storm drainage. The City further finds that in order
to mitigate the negative impacts of new development on the City's
.streets and street-related infrastructure, it is necessary and just
that those persons engaged in new development within the City
be required to improve streets and street-related infrastructure
adjacent to the property being developed, if the same is below the
City's current. standards for such improyements at the time of the
development. See (6) Exhibit "A° :Conditions
b. Any person constructing a building or otherwise.developing
property within the, City which is adjacent to a public. street,
highway or alley shall, as a condition of issuance of a certificate
of occupancy for said construction or development, cause.
improvement of the street, highway or alley in accordance with
the same standards and requirements as are in effect ..for the
creation and improvementof streets within subdivisions, including,
but not limited to, the design standards set forth in Chapter 16.20 ...,
of this code.. The City Building Official is authorized to withhold `-
issuance of acertificate ofoccupancy until such improvements are
completed. See 16) Exhibit "A" Conditions.
2. CPMC 12.02, 17.72 -Street Lighting Improvemertts:~See (8)'
Exhibit "A" Conditions.
3. CPMC 12.02, 15.40, 17.72 -Traffic-Control and Delineation
Improvements: See (9) Exhibit''A" Conditions.
4. CPMC 12.02, 15.40, 17.72 -Curb /Gutter Improvements: See (6)
and (14) Exhibit "A" Conditions.
14
Site Plan Review
Johnson Office Building
May 16, 1995 -Page Four
5. CPMC 12.02 and 17.72 -Safety Improvements. (See report from
Central Point Department of Public Safety.) Standards -CPMC
17.72.040 G. Other development conditions can be implemented
to ensure the health, safety, and privacy of Central Point
residents. Various timing factors may apply.
6. CPMC 15.40 -Ingress/Egress/Vision Improvements:
Standards -CPMC 17.72.040 B -Discussion: City of Central Point
Comprehensive Pian, Part XI Page 4, .states that "Major arterials
are intended to primarily move large amounts of traffic and not to
provide access to property" CPMC 17.726 indicates that
driveways should be located and designed so as not to interfere
with traffic. City of Central Point Standard Specifications and
Uniform Details for Public Works Construction, Table K-1, Page
XIV and Detail A-5, Commercial, indicate the driveway to be the
farthest distance on the lot away from the street intersection -See
(14) Exhibit "A" Conditions.
7. CPMC 17.64 -Parking: See Planning Department Report.
8. CPMC 12.04 and 15.40 -Sidewalk Improvements: Standards -
CPMC 12.04 -See (6),(9) and (14) Exhibit "A" Conditions.
)I. WATER IMPROVEMENTS
Includes: Mainlines, Property Service, Fire Service and Back-flow Protection. '~
A. Existing Conditions
1. One existing 6" diameter water line lies in the south Sid)r.pf East
Pine Street.
2. One existing 8" diameter water line lies in South 7th Street.
B. Discussion
1. a. Mainlines: The existing 6" water line in East Pine Street
shall provide for fire protection and domestic use for this
project.
b. Mainlines: A 12" mainline is proposed at a future date
based on a 1979 study conducted by CH'M Hill.
f5
Site Plan Review
Johnson Office Building
May 16, 1995 -Page Five
(Water Lines -Continued)
2. Property Service A water meter service exists on Applicant's East
Pine Street frontage. See (10) Exhibit "A" Conditions.
3. Fire Service: See Central Point Department of Public Safety
Report.
4. Back-flow: Standards -OAR Chapter 333. See (7) and (10)
Exhibit "A" Conditions.
SANITARY SEWER IMPROVEMENTS
Includes: Mainline, Property Service, Regional System Development Charge,
Local SDC,
A. Existing Conditions
1. A 24" sewer line is located in East Pine Street.
2. A 24" Sewer Line is located in South 7th Street.
B. Discussion
1. Property Service: Utilize 24" sanitary sewer main located in South
7th Street for any new building sewer hookup.ISee (10) Exhibit
"A"
2. Main Line: Main Line Construction is not required for this project.
See 16) & (7) Exhibit "A" Conditions.
IV. STORM DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS
Includes: Discharge Basin, Wetlands Requirements, pretreatment requirements,
mainlines, services, catch basins, and erosion protection.
A. Existing Conditions -
1. A 30" storm drain and manhole lie in the alley right of way along
applicant's south property frontage.
2.. A 12" storm drain lies in the west right of way of South 7th
Street..
f6
~~ Site Plan Review
Johnson Office Building
~• May. 16, 1995 -Page Six
B. Discussion:
1. Pretreatment Requirements: -None Required.
2. Mainlines: Provide storm drainage improvements in conformance
with the City's design criteria and standards. None required for
this. project. See (6) Exhibit "A" Conditions.
3. Property Service: According to CPMC 15.12, the plumbing plan
for this project must include connection for all roof drains, crawl
spaces and areas drains to an approved storm drainage system.
See (7)(12) and (13) Exhibit "A" Conditions.
4. Flood Management, CPMC 8.24: This. property is not located in
the flood way of the 100-year flood plain.
~~
n~ l11'rll,C Dl
EXHIBIT "A"
CONDITIONS
APPLICANT SHALL COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TIMING
FACTORS AS NOTED.
TIMING FACTORS
TF - 1 To be submitted as a part of construction plans and specifications for
review by the City prior to issuing permits.
TF - 2 To be completed prior to issuance of any Construction or Building
Permits.
TF - 3 To be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
TF - 4 To be completed prior to Approval of the Final Plat.
TF - 5 To be a continuous condition, to be set at the time of future land use
action decisions.
GENERAL:
1. Applicant shall construct all utilities, streets, and other structures discussed
herein, within rights-of-way owned, or to be owned by the City of Central
Point, in accordance with all rules, regulations, ordinances, resolutions,
standards and other applicable requirements of the City of Central Point for the
construction of this development.
2. This review for the SITE PLAN submitted by Applicant was done so in
accordance with all the rules, regulations, ordinances and standards in effect
as of the date of this review. Any modifications by Applicant of this project .....
after City Planning Commission approval, could require re-submittal of an "-
application, and approval by the City Planning Commission based on the
recommendation of staff responsible for this review.
3. Applicant shall pay all costs associated with this development~nd the'.
conditions placed on this development, prior to issuance of any construction or'
building permits.
4. No construction will begin on this project until the Public Works Department
and other pertinent departments or divisions of the City have reviewed the
project plans and specifications and have issued a construction permit.
5. Prior to Certificate of Occupancy, the City will inspect and test all existing
improvements proposed for dedication to the City. The City will conduct the
inspection and testing in the same manner, where practical, as required for new
construction. Applicant shall repair or replace any improvements not meeting
City standards for new construction. The City's inspection will include the
existing pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, base section and underground
improvements.
I8
.Johnson Uttlce tJUlltling
Exhibit "A" -Page Two
SITE SPECIFIC:
6. In accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the construction of this
TF 2 development shall include future street subgrade, base rock, paving, widening,
traffic control and delineation improvements, storm .-drain improvements,
sidewalks, and utility crossings to East Pine adjacent to Applicant's frontage.
Developer shall secure the above improvements by executing an agreement for
consent to inclusion in a Local Improvement District to construct the above
street improvements. The Planning Department has the option to require
security for East Pine Street improvements.
7. Applicant shall provide as-built construction drawings to the City for all existing
TF 3 and proposed improvements on East Pine Street, South 7th Street and alleyway
adjacent to Applicant's South property line dedicated to the City as part of this
project.
8. Applicant shall install a 22,000 Lumen HPS street light at approximately 80'
TF 3 east of the south west corner of Lot 4600 on the north side of East Pine Street.
(This location is in coordination with the street light installation required for the
Malot Office Building project.) Applicant shall also be required to install a 5,800
lumen HPS at approximately the South West property corner of Lot 7200 within
the Public Right of Way. The installation on E. Pine street shall require a metal
poles as stipulated by PP&L . The existing PP&L pole at the alley entrance may
accommodate the 5800 Lumen street light.
Applicant shall install all pads and conduits for street lights as a part of the
" construction of the development. All street light installations shall be as
stipulated in the Public Works Standards. Applicant shall coordinate the
installation with Pacific Power and Light Co. Applicant shall.pay ail required
costs #or the installations. `"
9. Applicant shall provide traffic control and delineation for the portions of East
TF 3 Pine Street and South 7th Street, adjacent to this project. All traffiocontrol and
delineation improvements shall be as approved by the Publi~_ Works
Department.
10, Applicant shall provide the City with the sizing requirements for the
TF 1 water service for this development. Applicant shall anticipate a minimum of one
water meter for this development. The City will provide and install the water
meter(s) on site as shown in the plans. The applicant may utilize the existing
'/4"meter, provided the service meets sizing requirements for the project.
Applicant shall install an OSHD approved testable backflow device behind the
City water meter for any system which connects to Applicant's irrigation
system or any other water system which may be a potential cross-connection.
Location, type(s) and size(s) of backflow prevention devices shall be shown on
construction drawings.
~~
.,vi n~avn vuwe auuamg
Exhibit "A" -Page Three
Applicant shall provide the City with sizing requirements and flow calculations
for the fire systems including any mains and hydrants.
11. Applicant shall provide a complete set of construction drawings for all new
TF 1 .construction of the sanitary sewer system for review and approval by the City
prior to issuance of a building permit. The property service line shall be located
and sized in accordance with the Oregon State Plumbing Code.
12. Applicant shall provide the City with a complete set of construction drawings
TF 1 for the storm drainage system to serve this property,. including connection to
the City system. All roof drains, area drains, crawl spaces, and parking lot
drains shall have positive drainage away from the structures, and shall connect
to the storm drainage system located in streets adjacent to property and the
storm sewer located in the alleyway located at the south property frontage.
13. Applicant shall provide the City with a grading and drainage plan for the entire
TF 1 . project. Runoff and pipe sizing calculations prepared by Applicant's engineer
shall accompany this submittal. The engineer shall use the intensity-duration
curve obtained from the Public Works Department for determining the runoff for
this project. The grading and drainage plan shall indicate topography and show
elevations sufficient to evaluate the plan.
Applicant shall route storm drainage from the parking lot of Lot .7200 to the
storm drain located in South 7th Street.
14. Applicant shall submits set of drawings for driveway, curb and gutter
TF 1 improvements including driveway access on the property adjacent to South 7th
Street. Applicant shall relocate proposed driveway access on South 7th Street
to meet the minimum distance requirements outlined in the Public Works
Standards, Design Guidelines, Page xiv, Table K-1 and Drawing A-5 Commercial
as measured from the. property line fronting on East Pine Street. In the event
the existing driveway is moved, or modified, Applicant shall replace currU, :gutter.
and sidewalk.
Vision and sight distance requirements must meet Public Works Standards as
shown on Detail Drawing No. A-4.
20
EXHIBIT ~ -
STAFF REPORT
Date: b/2/95
Project: Karolyn Johnson Office Building
Address: 714 East Pine Central Point, Or. 97502
Owner: Karolyn Johnson (Tom Malot Const. Co. Agent)
Architect: Bruce Abelce
Engineer: Not Specified
Surveyor: Not Specified
This is a Site Plan Review covering the Fire Protection aspects of a proposed 1600 Sq.
Ft. Offlce Building Project. The requirements outlined herein are based on the 1991
Edition of the Uniform Fire Code with 1992 State of Oregon Amendments. This review
assesses the Fire Protection needs related to Water Supply, Fire Department Access,
• Required Fire Flow, and General Precautions against Fire during construction. This
review does not cover the Structural nor Fire & life Safety requirements relating to the
proposed structures. Those requirements will be discussed in detail at the time of
submittal of detailed plans. ~- ~-
THE FOLLOWING ARE IvIY FINDINGS:
The required fire flow for this project is based on the largest structure within this =- -
development. That structure has been determined to have an approximate fire area--
of 1600 sq. ft. Using Table No. A-III-A-1 of the of the Uniform Fire Code and
assuming that the structure will be constructed of Type V-N. construction the
minimum required fire flow shall be established at 1500 g.p.m. There are two
existing hydrants located on Pine Street that will adequately satisfy Fire Flow
requirement.
2. General precautions against fire shall be in accordance with Section 87.103 UFC.
3. Water supply and hydrant locations shall be in accordance with Sections 10.401; -
10.402; 10.403; and 10.105 UFC.
(cont'd)
Page Z
21
4. Timing of the installation and maintenance of all Fire Protection and Life Safety
Systems shall be in accordance with Sections 10.501 and 10.502 UFC.
5. Fire Department access shall be in accordance with Sections 10.106; 10.203; 10.204;
and 10.205 UFC. Fire Department access is adequate as indicated on submitted
Site Plan.
Approval of the submitted Site Plan is not an approval of omissions or oversights by
this office; or of non-compliance with any applicable regulations of this jurisdiction.
Note* COPIES OF THE CODE SECTIONS PREFACED IN THIS REPORT
WILL BE DLSTRHiUTED TO THE DEVELOPERS OF THIS PROJECT FOR
THEIR REFERENCE.
~~-~
Reviewed Byz 'Mark A. Servatius Fire Cbief/Building Official
~~
R
Concrete To Prop. Line
SINGLE AND MULTI FAMILY
i
~ e.
Concrete To Prop. L(~e
COMMERCIAL
~.
CITY: OF CENTRAL POINT
UNIFORM. STANDARDS
.PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION
MINIMUM ACCESS SPACING
CHECKEO~ OATE~ ~~(~' ~'
APPROVED OATEN n ~ C~
REVISEO~ GATE= !'1 V
DRIVEWAY AND PROPERTY ACCESS DIT7~NSIONS
S'T'REET CLASSIFICATION
Design Criteria Dimtmion LOCAL COLLEC!'OR SECONDARY MAIOR
Rcf<rcnce R CJl R C/1 R Cfi R CR
W
Driv<way Width
Minimum 10 ft. 12 ft. 30 ft. 12 ft. !0 ft. 12 ft. 24 fl. 30 ft.
Maximum 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 fl. 30 R. 96 ft. 36 ft. (1) (!)
Drivewav CLtb R
Radiur at Street
Minmum 20 R. 20 ft. 20 fl. 20 ft. 35 R. 35 R. 35 ti SO ft.
Maxiawm 20 R. 35 ft 35 R. SO ft. SO R. SO R. (1) (2)
Soacine lrom C
Intonation
M'udmum (d) Cd) (3) (ij (3) (d) (d) (3)
Saacine from P
Prooerty Line
Minimum S R. S R. 15 R. 20 R. (4) (4) (d) (~
M•~m ~ rn rn rn rn rn rn cap caI
$a.aine i;etwan S
.~,
Minimum to a to a 3o ti 4o R. m m m m
(1) Maximum drivewayorptoperty saw width from Major Arterial streeu shop ba determind by the Pu6Ge Works Department. The
Public Works Department wy require a TnIGe lcagirteeriag SWdy by We >,ppl'reaM's tnRw eagiaar whoa dekrtwtiag maximum
driveway widths.
(l) Maxiawm curb ndius for driveways or properly access u a Major Arterial weer ahdl 6e detemdaed by~th~Pubile Works
Department. -.-.
(!) Farthest Diwme oa the lot away from trio strecl imerseeGOa. Minimum disunce 30' from the property I'me which is adjaeem to the
intcrseeGoa (Soo Drawing A-S)
(4) Driveway spaomg from non interucGon properly Gnu :h.G be determined by the Public Works DepaMrenl, with minimum rpuing
oC30tat.
(5) Mazunum drivcway spacing 4om aoa iatersecGoa property t'mea shall be the farthest d'uunee om the lot away from the property and
stiG steel aG othec driveway spacing wndards.
(~ Spaeiag of driveways or properly aeew from non iatenatioa property lines on ^ weer e4ssified as ^ Major Arterial, shall be ...
dctemdaed by the Public Works Depawnem. Tha Pablic Works. Departmem may saquiro a Tn(fx FJrgineering Sudy by the --
Appl'ream's tralGe enguteeq when determining spacing of driveways from mn-intenaGoaproperty lines.
(~ hfmimum d'tataaces betwua driveway or property aeeen shat 6e determined by Wa Public Works DepaNmem. The Public Works
Departaxrd may roqurrc a TtaRiaEngincering Smdybythe Applicant's tn[fie enginarwhca determining minimum spatimg 6<tweea
driveways.
' R - Residential -
C/l - Commcrciel or Industrial
$~'AFF REPORT
TO: entral Point Planning Commission DATE: 6/2/95
FROM: George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator
SUBJECT: Public Hearing - Review -and Determination Regarding
Application for Zoning Variance for property located at 537
Laurel Street Relating to Setback Requirements (Applicant!
Properly Owners Shannon Lenz and Scott R. Lenz)
(372W 3DA Tax Lot 12300)
Description of Application
The Zoning Variance Application is described in Exhibit A, Notice of Public Hearing. Exhibit
B also outlines the decision criteria for zoning variances.
History
None relevant to this application.
Review Discussion and Conclusion
The applicant proposes to construct a garage at the rear of an interior .lot within the. 20 foot
setback area which the city requires along properly lines located adjacent to streets and alleys.
Staff reviewed this variance application from the public health, safety and welfare perspective
and tentatively concludes that there are no instances where the proposed setback reduction (from
20 to 5 feet) would impact the city's safety, health, welfare goals. With respect to clear vision;
the Planning Department is still researching an area along the west property line which is being
used by the property owner to the west for vehicle parking and access.
Exhibits
Exhibit A -Notice of Public Hearing
Exhibit B -Maps
Exhibit C =Application for Zoning Variance
25
EXHIBIT ~-
155 Sauth SecanC Street
Central Point, OR 97504
(503) 664-3324
THE HEART OF THE
ROGUE RIVER VALLEY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Date of Notice; .May 17, 1995
Hearing Date: Tuesday, June 6, 1995
Time: 7:00 PM (approximate)
Place:. Central Point City Council Chambers
155 South Second Street, Central Point,
Oregon
NATURE OF HEARINGS
George Rubaloff
Planning Administrator
Sandy Lommel
Administrative•
Planning Secretary
Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will
conduct a public hearing to review an application for Zoning ..Variance for property
located at 537 Laurel Street, on the northside of Laurel Street betweea Fifth and Sixth
Streets. If approved, the variance would permit construction of a detached garage
within the 20 foot setback area that is required off of the alleyway. Access to the
proposed garage would be from Laurel Street. The applicant/properly owners are
Shannon M. Lenz and Scott R. Lenz.
C'RiTPRIA FOR DECISION
Consideration for granting caning variances. is based upon unnecessazy hardship and the
following criteria outlined in Chapter 17.80 of the Central Point Municipal Code:
i. The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the
city, such as beautification or safety; -
2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the
neighborhood;
3. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the
zoning district;
4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other
property in the same zoning district;
5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed
through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's
agents, employees or family members.
~~
i?UBLIC COMMENTS
1. Any person interested in commenting on this land use application may
submit written comments up until the close of the hearing scheduled for
June 6,1995.
2. Written comments should be sent to Central Point City Hall, 155 South
Second Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502, attention, George Rubaloff.
Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be
raised prior to the close of hearing on June 6, 1995: Testimony and
written comments about this land use decision need to be related to the
proposal and stated clearly to the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of the applicant's evidence are available for public review in
Room 214, City Offices, 155 South Second Street, Central Point,
Oregon. Copies of the same are available for 15 cents per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact George Rubaloff in
the Planning Department at (503) 664-3324.
4iiMMARY-0F PROCEDURE
n Atthe public hearing, the Planning Commission will review the application, and staff
reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear any
arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to
the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review hearing, the Planning
Commission may approve or deny the Zoning Variance for Tax Lot 12300 of Jackson
County Tax Assessor Map 37 2W 3DA. -~~
The City Council will be informed about the Planning Commission decision regarding
the proposed variance. The Council may, on its own motion, call for a review of the
Planning Commission decision, or, may grant such review requested by any party
aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission. _ - -
ATTENTION MORTGAGEE LIENHOLDER, VENDOR OR SELLER
If you receive this notice, please promptly forward it to the purchaser of the properly
located in the vicinity of this land use proposal.
2'7
i
~--1L- ~_I__i~
'~'C,
~l
,<'~~~~~
I
I
~'y
.~\~
~ 6~1
\6 L w
M ~ ~~
\r
I~~ I
11300
y~
PQ
p o 3
~- ~•
5~~
.~
p.Gf11~ ~ off
1 ~
s ~ O,
J
D ~ /
~~
~~ '
~ ~{
i ~,;
r~
~,
~.
N
N
n
d
Z
0
0
Y
v
N
\Zg01 e~ °•
I~33.~G) ~~'1 ~
O ~ " V
6Q ~AV ~j .~:~ = .
r _29 _ y./r
°~ CEMTRgL POINT, s~`
.. r
. _ r~s-~,
~.. .- ._ .. „-.~ ..ter,--~-
s~
~F f~,
~~~
s ~s
%~ ~o
.J
_/
xm O ~ ~~ O ~
m
/n Q~ / O (12
p ~ 1\O ~ x
OHO pC~,~ ~ ~ .~ ~~ in.
'" p~
O ~y~~
O ~~
N.Ok ~ \\
~% ~ ~~
~. ~ ~ ~~
~~~~` O.
2~~- NO~ O
~ .
O~
~ ~ \~~ ~x
. ,m ~- ~.
\/~ \
On
~ VO -o
~M
• Q `\-
.5. $
y A
o~
XN O,\ 1
w' j~V~\
N t ~(-
~~pL \
O _ y~ .
c n
\~~\~~
Y ,~
~y i
3
O ~O
x
xm
a
O
/ ~~
~`y .G
V
O~
\ 6~z~9s' ~ z ~ + ~
/~ m
0
a'ppliC~.c~„f-sraf~s in aYp~-~~fron ~ ~ --
A-F' This daf~, Tom- build ~„ ~'is Th/s access ~
Is °xrsT7n
'.
Adjocanl. SAeel No.; 37 2 W 2 C ~ 0 1r
' AP9.E'LICAIIUN FUF{ LUNI~a VAFiIA)~~~~~®
~...
CITYOFCENTRALPOINTPLANNINGDEPARTMENT MAYL2199SEXHIBTf ~-
v!--
1. APPLICANT INFORMATION O CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Name: ~5eo#q `F~)~- TIME c2'~Snp.~. ~ .
Address: ~3'7 La uvEL 5~', r
Cgy; CEn1J-.-.n2. Poi/1~" Stata: ('~QEG~-ZiPCode:. ~O'~
,Telephone: Business:. ~°ie`~~NR~~ Reskierx»: ~'~~/-903$
2. AGENT INFORMATION
Name: ~~~ ~'*
Address:
Chy: Mate: Zip Code:
Telephone: business: Reskience:
3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheel It More Than One)
Name: Sl'o7~1",F S~iggnon LE'sJZ-
Chy: (~•,.,~ ~ n i~n'f' Steb: --l~~c.ZLIpGCoda: ~~~
Telephone: business: Residence: ~rL7- /o~R
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~~~]. LYYJYQ.I S'4'• C.ur(YA4. (X-~~ O(~
Township:~'7 Ranga;~u1 Seclbn;$pgTaxlot(s): /~.3nD
Zoning Dislrbl: R' ~-
5. REOUIREDSUBMITTALS
~Jhis Applicatbn Form
SkePlan and Elevatbns Drawn to Scale (10
,sets)
Gf One Copy of a Reduced Site Plan and
,Elevalbns (81/2' x 17~
C~" Applbalion Fee ($200.00)
C>f WritlanAUlhorriytromPropeAyOwnergAgem
$rApppllcatbn Process
[,~'L~gal DescdpGon of the Property
Rndings (Addressing Crileda In Sedbn 17.80
of the Central Point Munbipal Code)
6. 1 HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND "".
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY
KNOWLEDGE.
I certfly that 1 am the: Property Owner or ^ Authorized Agem of the Owner
of the proposed project stte. ,
t t ., ..
1, Scott Lenz, propose to build a detached accessory
building to replace my existing building at ~~ ~ Laurel St. in
Central Point.. I~/ly existing. u~ ing is built directly on my rear-
yard property fine and eight feet from my side-yard property
line. nny existing building has double doors exiting into the
alley. There is a fence that attaches to both sides of the
building, facing the aNey.
tViy proposal includes improving my rear-yard setback to
five feet and my side-yard setback to six feet. In addifion to
improving the setbacks from the existing condition, !will
continue the fencing behind the building so that there will be
no alley access to and from the .new building. Access to and
from the new building will be achieved from the front of my
property.
.Due to the age and condition of my existing building, the
variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood by
cieanin~ it up and providing a nicer appearance. This will add
to the beautification of the area. C)ne of the advantages to the
neighborhood, if I am .granted the variapce, will be by ~-
--..__
improving my garage, I will be conforming more to today's
standards by providing covered, off street parking for;my
residence. nny proposed new .building wil! not create any
visionary problems for. myself or my neighbors, so by
improving my Existing condition, I will not create any adverse
impact on the neighborhood surrounding my project and
safety will not be compromised. .
32
` . / ~~ EX15~rV) N
a. ~ , ,, .~SJr
~~ ~ ' , ~ ~.
. „~ ~.:{ a
.. `may ~.
• :~.., .,.,x
Pro osed`>y;;;-..,, ~Er-trance:':` . ,
tJe.~J ~~ ~ : ~ a8
`A Y/
±;
(..
,an....,. ~ . ...
;+
gle 1 )~
~ ~'~1k 4x~y_ ~ O 1 'Y'y ~ U~~
.;i:{ ~:.
~ ,
~ .~M+,e ~
.,,
~a ~
+
~n
..
S
4
.
t
' ~
- ..
i
- .
Y~f~ {i
~~ ; ; ~ .~
,
. ~ ' ~ron_t' ~pra i~
~. ... .. .
..~.-.~~,VA
b ~`~~ ~ 1
~,:~'
-
Cur .
.
:
.,~::~,: .
~ r 53 ~~~~~~
/
.. '• . ~~
.
.
:~C;:P ~ .o R 33
J`~YIQ~(- .~AMII~
a ~..JJl.J2~11nG~ /
I.eya~- ~cnp-hbn:
~1a~.5~
~.~o+ 7.
ScR~E ~'' . ao~
t\
_ a.
d-
.~
.
2 N ~
~
~ ~
U) p
~ Q N
O ~
.- N ~/
3
s s
~ ~°a,..
N a~ ~
-4- ~ .
~ ~
1n ~
~
~ ~N7
Ada
~~
a
s~
v
z
~ ~.
o u' ,.
c91 ?
~~
~p
~~
~~
~~
,~K
~~
0
~~
~'
N ~
~ ~~ ~
3 ' °
-
9
,~~-_ ~
~~ f z
m
_
~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~° z o
0
8~ ~
a
~-3 ~
J r ~ i ~iS
n
0
u
J
/1
~ z.
~Q A
u~y
c$
x ~.
~~ v
\ \
O
~
, ?
.., U
_a
~~ W
~
W .
. GG
3 ~ ~'
z,
i
i
i
i
i
O
7
.F
. . v~
s
~~
~~ .
a- 2
~-
i
. u ~ ;:
(_-~~
~, ~~~~~ III ~~~~~-
~~
2
i ~ ;~ ~ -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: George Rubaloff, Planning Administrator
TOPIC. Review and Recommendation. regarding proposed zone
text amendment to various sections of the Central Point
Municipal Code pertaining to side and front setbacks on
corner lots within the residen5al districts
nrl
DATE: 6!2195
City.policy requires the Planning Commission to review and formulate recommendations
for zoning text amendments. The Commission may make their recommendations in the
form of aminute-motion.
background
At the request W.L. Moore Construction, Whittle Construction and Pacific Trend
Construction, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 320 which initiated the
process for amending the city zoning regulations regarding setbacks on corner lots.
Discussion
The following are areas of concern which are being proposed for discussion during this
review process:
1. Clear Vision and Site Distance Standards should be applied to each
comer lot analysis and would dictate the precise location of setback lines
on corner lots in order to maintain traffic safety at intersections.
2. Special setback regulations in CPMC 17.60.090 should be applied to -'-=°
those corner lots which are located on arterial streets to permit eventual --
widening of streets and maintain safety on more heavily travelled streets.
3. Any structure served by driveway would need to have a minimum 20
foot setback so that parked vehicles do not protrude into the right-of-
way.
Attachments
Item 1 - Resolution No. 320
Item 2 - Request and Findings Submitted by Developers
Item 3 - Notice of Public Hearing Scheduled for June 15, 1995
3~
i
Item 4 - Draft Ordinance
Item 5 - CPMC 17.60.090 Special Setback
Requirements (Arterial Streets)
Item 6 - Page xii of Public. Works Standards (Site
Triangle and Site Distance)
~~
ITEM ~ .---
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ,~,~
A RESOLUTION OF INTENT'TO AMEND ZONING TEXT REGARDING
SETBACK STANDARDS FOR SIDE YARDS ABUTTING STREETS
IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, that it is the intent of the Planning
Commission to initiate amendments to the Central Point Municipal
Code, Sections 17.16.050D, 17.20.050, 17.24.050E, and 17.28.050E,
pertaining to side yard setback standards for side yards abutting
streets.
Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by its Chairman
in authentication of its passage this ~,~ day of May, 1995.
Planning Commission Chairman
ATTEST:
M .2. ~ ,~
• City Re a tative
Approved by me this ~~ day of , 1995.
J
~~~~ o
Planning Commission Chairman ~-~-
`~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. ~{~ (052395)
3'7
f~
ITEM
IN THE MATTER; OF A REQUEST FOR AN )
AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF SEVERAL )
• )
SECTIONS OF THE CITY OF CENTRBL )
POINT ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING )
TO SIDE AND FRONT i'ARD SETBACKS: )
W.L. MOORE CONSTRUCTION, WHITTLE )
CONSTRUCTION AND PACIFIC TREND )
CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANTS )
REQUEST FOR REVIEW
AND RESOLUTION OF INTENY'ION
I NATURE OF THE APPLICATION:
DATE: March 10, 1995
APPLICANTS: W.L. Moore Construction Co. .
3600 Westover Drive '
' Central Point, OR 97502
Pacific Trend Building Company
1014 N. Riverside
Medford, OR 97504 _.. -= :_
Whittle Construation
908 East Jackson
Medford, OR 97504
AGENT: J. Michael LBNier, Consultant
2720 $tonebrook
Medford, OR 97504
(503) 779-2509
~~
l
Page 2
APPT.ICATIQN: A request that the Planning Commission of the City
of Central Point review a request to amend
specific criteria within the text of the. Zoning
Ordinance (CPZO) co:sistent with the provisions of
Chapter 1.24.020(C)~and issue a Resolution of
Intention consistent with Section 17.88.020(A).
Specifically, the request is to amend the text of
the CPZO as it rel8tes to the side yard setback
requirements for paTeels abutting a side street,
as contained in Sections 17.16.050(D), 17.20.050,
17.29.050(E), and 17.28.050(E). The request would
be to amend the side yard setback £or parcels
abutting a side street (i.e, corner lots) from 20
feet to 10 feet.
IL DISCUSSIO OF THE
A. Economic Imua~~:
The above noted sections of the CPZO require a minimum side yard of
five (5) feet for all parcels, except on corner lots abutting a
street, where a side yard setback o£ twenty (20) feet is required.
in conjunction with the twenty (2)) foot front yard setback, the
twenty (20) feot side yard setback for corner lots, partioularly in
the R--1-6 and R-1-8 Zoning Districts, results in many"homes having ~-
a disproportionately large front yard and very little back yard_
For example, an average 7,000 square foot lot (70 x 100) has.
adequate back yard if it is an internal lot. However, if the
parcel is looated on a corner, the actual buildable lot becomes
only 50 x 80 ( 70-20 50; 100-20 80) . The home then =~~comes
compressed into the lot with little or no back yard space.
This situation has become an issue primarily due to the fact that
average lot sizes in Central Point have been gradually reduced in
size and dimension over the past ten to fifteen years as the result
of higher land and development costs, as they relate to average
selling prices.
~~
Page 3
While it has been inevitable that housing costs would rise over
time, the costs of land, .development fees and improvements have
increased significantly faster (and higher} than the selling: prices
that are. dictated by the local economy.
zn order for the development community to maintain priCes~within
reasonable- affordable levels, either prices must increase, or
development costs. decrease. The industry has responded with both
moderately increased housing prices (given the cost increases), and
an effort to control development costs by downsizing parcels and
homes. ~ +
For example, in the late 1970's and early 1980's, when the CPZO was
drafted, average lot sizes were between 8,000 square feet and
10,000 square feet in size for new parcels; smaller 6,000 to 7,000
square foot lots were generally holdover parcels from original
plats and subdivisions done before 1965.
Average land costs in the 1970's and 1980's for developable land
were in the $10,000 per acre range; this resulted in an average lot
cost of approximately 56,000 to $8,000. Improvement costs were
between 510,000 and 514,000 per lot, and lots sold for $18,000 to
524,000; profits were in many cases less than $2,000 per lot, or
approximately a 10~ profit margin.
In 1995, land -costs for,developable land are generally in the
$30,000 per care range, and development costs, due to inflation,
increased costs for materials, labor, systems development charges,
fees and other costs have nearly doubled; the average. 8,000 square ...
foot lot generally has. between 518,000 and 526,-000 development -~
costs attached. Lots new sell for between`530,000 and 540,000, and
the profit margins for the development community are between 6~ and
9~.
The ability of the average citizen to purchase a home is limited by
the local- economy and housing market, which dictates the prices.
building contractors can really charge. Average home prices in the
early 198o's ranged from 565,000 to 80,000; tc date, the average
home price is over $125,000. At a recent presentation in the City
of Phoenix, the developer noted homes were "moderately" priced...at
595,000 to 5105,000!- These. prices disenfranchise many working
people, who simply cannot afford house payments in the 5950-1200
per month range. ,
~d
Page 4
AS noted above downsizing of homes and parcels is one of the tools
uses by the development industry to bring prises within reach of
the home_buying public.
This downsizing, along with the large side yard setback required by
Central Point creates a design problem that often results in a hom6
that many buyers find unattractive ar unworkable, in that the back
yard area is compressed very tightly to the interior lot lines,
provides no backyard for children, or privacy.
8 Regional Consistency
A second issue is One of consistency in design criteria. Most of
the builders and developers who build in Central Point are regional
in character; in other words, they build in Phoenix, Ashland and
Medford, as well as Central-Point. Consistency of .the various land
use ordinances results in greater efficienoy, .fewer problems in
interpretation and fewer errors in drafting and preparing ,site
plans by the barious builders. -
Most communities in the area utilize a ten (10 ) foot side yard
setback on corner lots, as opposed to the•Central Paint standard.
For example, the City of Medford Land Development Code (MLDO) •
provides for a 10 foot side yard setback on-corner lots (Section
,` 10.710, MLDO). The City of Ashland Land Use Ordinance (ALUO), in
Chapter 18, provides for a 10 foot setback on corner lots for
residential uses, as does the City of Eagle Point. The City of
Grants Pass also has a 10 foot side yard setback abutting a side
street or alley (Chapter 12.152, Residential .Lot Requirements, w
GPLDO).
III. PROCEDURE•
Amendments to the zoning ordinance are provided for in-Chapter
17.88, which outlines procedure for initiation of amendments, and
Chapter 1.24, which delineates Planning Commission and Council
functions-
Section 17.88.020 notes that an amendment to the text or the zoning
map may be done by: (A) Resolution of intent by the planning
commission,. (S) Resolution of intent by the city council, or (C)
application by property owners or agents..
~i
Page 5
in the latter case, the language of the section obviously refers to
amendments to the zoning map,: as it calls for legal descriptions
and maps showing the "affected area."
A review of Section 1.2~.020(C) and~(D) indicates that
"The Planning Commission shall review and make
recommendations to the Cfty Council on those matters
specified in subsection D of this section."
"n. The City Council shall hcild a public hearing and
decide the following matters:
1. Amendments to the text and map of the
Comprehensive Plaa;
2. Amendments to the text and map of the
Zoning -0rdinance..."
In this case, -the applicants are requesting that the Planning
Commission review this request for an amendment to the text o£ the
Zoning Ordinanoe, consistent with Section 1.24.020(C), and make a
recommendation to the City Council via a Resolution of rntentiOn,
consistent with Section 17.88.020(A).
The`appiicants, in addition to providing•the information iri the
discussion above, are-submitting proposed findings of fact and a
draft Resolution to assist the Citg in processing this request.
IV. PROP SE FINDINGS OF ACT:
FINDING #1•
The City of Central Point finds that the current Zoning_Ordinance
Requirement for a 20-toot side yard setback far parcels abutting a
street or alley (corner lot) is npt consistent with the similar
requirements of zoning ordinances and .land-development codes
adopted by other jurisdictions in the area, including the Cities of
Medford, Ashland, Grants Pass and Eagle Point.
Detailed review of the .land uae ordinances adopted by those
jurisdictions indicates that in all cases, they utilize a 10-foot
side yard setback for parcels abutting a street or alley (Corner
lot).
~~
Page 6
FINDING #2•
The current zoning Ordinanoe requirement dates from the late 1970's
and early 1980'x, when average lot sizes were between 2,000 and
3,000 feet larger than lots currently being developefl.
The current requirement for a 20-foot side yard setback abutting a
street did not place an unreasonable burden on a developer or
landowner who was building on a 10,000 square foot lot or larger;
however, the current requirement creates a design and 18nd use
problem with smaller lots currently being developed, forcing a home
to be plac¢d more to the rear and internal lot lines, reducing beak
yard sizes and eliminating elements of privacy.-
FINDING #3•
The information contained in the
amend Sections 17.16.050(D),
17.28.OS0(E) from 20 feet to 10
will
request provides justification to
17.20.050, 17.24.050(E) and
feet, in than such an amendment
A) Eliminate a design problem with land use and lot coverage
for smaller parcels,
8) Will provide. additional flexibility for the builder in
placing homes on smaller corner parcels, while helping the
industry provide for more affordable housing.
FINDING #4•.
The amendment will further eliminate industry concerns over
potential errors in drafting and design by regional developers,
helping reduce costs, speed the design and review procedure and
provide consistency in mapping and platting of new developments.
43
page 7
V_ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS:
In summation, The applicants urge the amendment to the text of the
Central Point Zoning Ordinance to reduce the side yard setback for
corner lots or lots abutting,a street or alley from 20 feet to 10
feet, based upon the infornation submitted above; i.e., consistency
with other jurisdictions in the regional area, and to eliminate a
design and land'. use problem that affects the salability and
utilization of property within the City.
Further, the applicants in this issue would respectfully request
the City of Central Point Planning Commission raview this request
in a public meeting consistent with Section 1.24 of the Zoning
Ordinance, and make a recommendation to the City Council via a
Resolution of Intention consistent with Section 17.88.020.
The applicants feel that this request is in the best interests of
the public health, safety, welfare and convenience, and the public
interest, as specifically outlined in Section 17.88.~40(D), and
respectfully urge approval.
THIS-13TH DhY OF MARCH, 1995:
J_ Michael LaNier
Consultant
44
ITEM -S
155 South Second Street
Central Point, OR 97502
(5031 664-3324
Ceorge Rubatoff
Pfanntng Admtn(strator
THE HEART OF THE sandy Lommel
ROGUE RIVER VALLEY Admtntstrative-
Planning secretary
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING .
The City of Central Point has scheduled the following public hearing during which the
Council will consider amendments to; Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the Central Point
Municipal Code and hear testimony relating to the proposed amendment.
Hearing Date: Thursday, June 15, 1995
Time: 7:00 PM (Approximate)
Place: Central Point Council Chambers
155 South Secoad Street
The amendments being considered are sections 17.16.OSOD, 17.20.050, 17.24.OSOE,
and 17.28.050E all of which pertaia to residential setback rules for side yards abutting
streets. The proposed change would reduce the current minimum of 20 feet to a
minimum of 10 feet, subject to the City's Public Works Standazds on cleaz vision and
sight distance at intersections.
A copy of the findings supporting the amendment and a draft ordinance are available
for public review at the Central Point Planning Commission, Room 214, 155 South
Second Street on weekdays (except holidays) between the hours of 9 AM.and 12 Noon
and 1 PM and 5 PM. "
If you have questions regazding the proposed amendment, contact George Rubaloff of
the Central Point Planning Department at (503) 6643324.
~J
ITEM
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE
ZONING TEXT REGARDING SETBACK STANDARDS FOR
SIDE YARDS ABUTTING STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.16.050
is hereby amended to-read as follows:
lot requirements shallwbeyobserved in the1ReLedistricte following
A. Lot Area. The lot area shall be a minimum of fifteen
thousand square feet.
B. Lot Width. The
five feet.
C. -Front Yard. The
feet.
D. Side Yard.
however, side yards
future street (ska~
lot width shall be a minimum of seventy-
front yard shall be a minimum of twenty
Side yards shall be a minimum of ten feet;
abutting a street or a proposed or planned
___ ___, ) shall aomnl~
Section 2. Central Point Munioipal Code Section 17.20.050
is hereby amended to read as follows:
•~~~ ~~a. wiuLn ana yara requirements. The lot
requirements of the R-1 zoning district are governed by the
subcategories of R-1-6, R-1-8 and R-1-10, as delineated on the
official zoning map of Central Point. The area, width. and yard
requirements of these subcategories shall be in accordance with
the following table:
Development Requirements R-1-6
Minimum lot area (interior).. 6,000
Minimum lot area (corner).. 7,000
Minimum lot width (interior). 60 ft.
Minimum lot width (corner)... 70 ft.
Minimum lot depth............ N/A
Minimum front yard.. .... .. 20 ft.
Minimum side yard (interior). 5 ft.*
Minimum side yard (street
side) ....................... ('z~~~)
10 ft.**
Minimum rear yard............ 15 ft.
1 - ORDINANCE NO.
(051795)
R-1-8 R-1-10
8,000
8,000
60 ft.
70 ft.
N/A
20 ft.
5 ft.*
10 ft.**
15 ft.
10,000
10,000
60 ft.
70 ft.
N/A
20 ft.
5 ft.
?-GV'fST' )
10 ft.**
15 ft.
46
ITEM 3
Section 3. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.24.050
is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.24.050 Area, width and yard requirements. The following
lot requirements shall be observed(:-) in the R-2 Distri~•
A. Lot Area. The lot area'shall be a minimum of six
thousand square feet with corner lots being a minimum of seven
thousand square feet.
8. Lot Width. The minimum width of a lot (~-R-~
`"`"a~~~) shall be sixty feet, with corner lots being a minimum
of seventy feet in width.
C. Lot Depth. No requirements.
D. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of twenty
feet.
E. Side Yard. Side yards shall be a minimum of five feet
per story. Side yards abutting a street shall be a minimum of
(~we~t~) ten feet(r); provided that, side yards abutting streets
Section 4. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.28.050.
is hereby amended to read as follows:
].7.28.050 Area, width and yard requirements. The following
lot requirements shall be observed() in the R-3 Dist~ict•
A. Lot Area. The lot area shall be a minimum of six w
thousand square feet with corner lots being a minimum of seven
thousand square feet.
8. Lot Width. The minimum width of a lot (~.~_~
`'"a~~z) shall be sixty feet, with corner lots being a minimum
of seventy feet in width. _ _
C. Lot Depth. No requirement. - -~
D. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of twenty
feet.
E. Side Yard. The side yard shall be a minimum of five
feet per story. Side yards abutting a street shall be a minimum
of (tweet-y) ten feet(: ),I_provided that. side yards abuttino
2 - ORDINANCE NO. (051795)
4'7
*Side yard setback shall be increased by an additional
five feet for each additional story or partial story
adjacent to the particular side yard boundary.
Passed. by the Council and signed by me in authentication of
its passage this day of , 1995.
Mayor Rusty McGrath
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this day of 1995.
Mayor Rusty McGrath
3 - ORDINANCE NO. (051795)
48
17.60..090--17.60.100
d ;_..,~
•1 side and rear yards required for the highest building oth-
erwise permitted in the district. The building shall not
occupy more than twenty-five percent of the area of the lot
and shall be distant not less than twenty-five feet in all
directions from every lot line not a street lot line.
(Ord. 1436 §2 (part), 1981).
17.60.090 Special setback requirements. To permit or
fford etter light, air and vision on more heavily trav-
eled streets, to protect arterial streets and to permit the
eventual widening of streets, the following street setback
lines are established along all secondary and major arteri-
al streets and highways, as identified in the comprehensive
plan. No building, structure, except for fences, or park-
ing area shall be erected or• maintained between such set-
back line and the street line.
A. In any residential district,. the Bear Creek Green-
way district and the M-1 district the setback line shall
be:
1. Sixty feet distant from the centerline of any
secondary arterial or highway;
2. Seventy feet distant from the centerline of any
major arterial street or highway.
B. In any C-1 and C-2 district the setback line shall
be:
'•) 1. Forty-five feet distant from the centerline of
,any secondary arterial or highway;
' 2. Fifty-five feet distant from the centerline of
any major arterial street or highway.
. C. In any C-3 district the setback line shall be:
1. Forty feet distant from the centerline of any
secondary arterial or highway;
2. Fifty feet distant from the centerline of any
major arterial street or highway.
D. In any C-4, C-5 and M-2 district the setback •line
shall be:
1. Fifty feet distant from the centerline of any
secondary arterial or highway; _
2. Sixty feet distant from the centerline o~-any
major arterial street or highway. .(Ord. 1684 §56, 1993:
' Ord. 1615 §§21, 28, 1989; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981).
17.60.100 Projections from buildings. Bay windows,
cornices, eaves, canopies, sunshades, gutters; chimneys,
flues, belt courses, leaders, sills, pilasters, lintels,
ornamental features and other similar architectural fea-
tures may project not more than eighteen inches into a
required yard or .into a required open space as established
by coverage standards. (Ord. 1436 §2 (part), 1981). •
~`
279-11b (Central Point 8/93)
• 49
as practical. When intersections of other than ninety degrees are unavoidable, the right-of--way lines along the acute angle shall have
a minimum comer radius of [}arty feet. ITEM
II. GRADES AND CURVES: -Grades shall not exceed six peroent (6 ~a) on major or secondary arterials or twelve percent
(12Yo) o¢ any other street. Minimum grades far streets shall beone-half percent ('h %). Centerline radii of curves shall not be less
than three hundred feet on major arterials, lwo hundred feet on secondary arterials or one hundred (It10) feet on other streets.
I. FLAG LOT ACCESS AND STANDARDS: Access to flag lots shall provide a minimum width of twenty (20) feet of
asphaltic concrete and two (2) inches in compacted depth with a minimum of six (6) inches of 3/4" inch- 0 inch (OSHD) cnrshed rock
base or equivalenras determined by suligrade test (compacted.to'a minimum of nine-five percent (95%) maximum density-0SHD
method). The subgrade shall be compacted to a minimum of nine-five percent (95%) T-99-74 D.
7. SIGHT DISTANCES AND CLEAR VISION AREAS:
1. Jntersection Sight Distances in Table J-1 below shall be followed when designing and consfmcting intersections of streets,
driveways and alleys.
TABLE J-I
SIGHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS •
Design Speed M.P.H. (km/Ir)
20(32) 30(48) 40(64) 50(80) 60(97)
MIIVIII4IJM CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE ~ ft(m)
dr and d~ as referenced in Drawing A-4
200(61)- 300(91) 400(122) 500(152) 600(183)
*Comer sight distance measured from a point of the minor road at least 10 ft. (4.6m) from the edge of the
major road pavement and measured from a height of eye of 3.5 fr. (LOSm) on the minor road to a height of
objoct of 4.25 ft. (1.3 m) on the majoc road.
2. Clear Vision Areas shall be established whey designing and constnrcting intersections with streets, driveways (property
access) or alleys as shown i¢ Table J-2 below:
Clear vision areas allow the driver of the vehicle to view approaching traffidat intersections wiUr streets and driveways, a ~
distance which is unobstrocted as shown in Drawing A-4 and referred to as 'sight triangle'.
TABLE J Z
Type of Street
Sight Triangle Distance
~ of Intersection Local Collector Secondary. Major
Residential Access IS' 25' S5' (1)
Commercial Access 25' 25' S5' (1)
htdustrial Access 55' SS'_ 55' (1)
Alley 15) 25' S5' (1)
Local Street 25' S5' S5' (1)
Collector Street SS 55' S5' (1)
Secondary Arterial 55' S5' SS' (1)
Major Arterial {I)' (1) (1) (1)
*(1) The Public Works Department may require the Apphcant or Uevetaper to provrae s t ratnc ~ngmcermg ~tuay for
Clear Vision in the event a minimum SS' sight triangle appears to be inadequate.
pwstndch.pgs xii cr} Q