Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission Packet - August 2, 1988
Nest Resolution No CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 155 South Second Street i August 2, 1988 - 7:00 p.m. AGENDA I. Meeting called to order II. Roll call III. Approval of minutes IV. Correspondence and public appearances 145 \\ V. Business Page ~) A. Public Meeting - Review and make a recommendation to the City 1 - 8 Council regarding a minor land partition request submitted by Delores Shehorn for property located 5285 Raymond Way (37 2W 34D, tax lot 200) n B. Public Meeting - Review and make a recommehdation to the City 9 - 12 Council regarding an annexation request of approximately 115 acres bounded generally by East Pine Street, Hamrick Road, Beebe Road, and Gebhard Road, and to withdraw same from Jackson County Fire District-#3 and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority. C. Public Meeting - Site plan review for a 24-unit. multiple-family 13 - 21 dwelling development to be constructed on Tenth Street in an R-3 zone (37 2W 2CB, tax lots 7303 and 7306) submitted by John Sleppy. D. Public Hearing - Variance for two required on-site parking 22 - 26 spaces associated with a 24-unit multiple-family dwelling development to be constructed on Tenth Street in an R-3 zone (37 2W 2CB, tax lots 7303 and 7306) submitted by John Sleppy. E. Discussion on Periodic Review 27 - 28 29 - 43 F. Discussion on fees for land use applications 44 - 47 G. Consideration of a resolution amending Planning Commission Resolution No. 95 regarding the Jackson Creek Neighborhood Development Plan. VI. Miscellaneous VSI. Adjournment S T A F F R E P O R T T0: Planning Con¢nission Members FROM: Randy Kugler, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Public meeting to revew and make a recommendation to the City Council concerning an application submitted by Delores Shehorn for a Minor Land Partition at SZ85 Raymond Way (37 2W 34D, Tax Lot 200) DATE: 29 July 1988 Mrs. Shehorn proposes to partition an existing parcel into two lots of 25,000 and 19,000 square feet. The proposed partition will meet all minimum area, width and yard requirements. As a condition of approval, Staff recommends that a Deferred Improve- ment Agreement (D.I.A.) be required for future storm drainage systems,. sidewalks, curbs, gutters, streetlights and paving of street surfaces for future improvement of Raymond Way. The following Exhibits are included: Exhibit A -.Application for a Minor Land Partition Exhibit B - Certificate of posting. of Planning Commission Agenda for August 2, 1988 Exhibit C - Applicants map Exhibit D - Tax Assessor's map page Exhibit E - Aerial map Exhibit F - public Works Director Staff Report Exhibit G - Resolution recommending approval of minor .land .partition. RK:rip cc: file SHEHORN7.29/ADMINI ~~ TO THE CITY OF CE~TR~1L POIVT, OREGO\ a.PPLIC.ITIOS FOR \LaJOR; 1fI~OR L1.\D PaRTIIIO\ Date ~ / ~9~~ ~ ~ I, ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~~~ J , proponent, request that the City of Centra(yl'9 Poi/n(/t/]initiate- fa/ctio//n_J//to partition they /pro//perty`locfa~ted at: l~^?~lJ ,'J~~ /~/tAfA,'1 /1JL/~C ~. ./ / ~ ~~ `J `~ C ~ _J~ ~ ) ~ t~ (street a~dr ss or J.C. plat ge ~~ parcel located on the l;l~e Sf side of R G., _ ,~ -( ~.L ~ .i ; N, E~ S, ~4 street including portions of /~/.~~ _ , containing -streets acres, more or less. The use or intended use of the parcel(s~ is: ~~"~, ,J, w~v~~„ ~,~~ Inhabited ~.a,ce ~ # ~ Uninhabited ~ t;G,ce ~ ~Z f This partition.is~is not accompanied by construction of f 5 n of improvements. ~O V~s~ o~ X77 JrC_A-P-~~t signature signature ,, ~g //~,,~) (~/' mailin9g add es JV'/ phone-"~9 number Required fee of $100.00 paid: '' Zv -~~ Z ~X . f~ ~, .,,yam, • .,f~ Z ~~ ~ _T ~~ .~%\ ~REGG~ . THE HEART OF THE ROGUE RNER VALLEY CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, THE FOLL04lING DATE, FOR THE_ FOR G~.~~/7i~rn-~'1 ~ NEAR / CERTIFY THAT ON `7Y~P~ I POSTED AN AGENDA AT OP. SIGNATURE T DATE ~ - 2,~ c~ P.0. 80X3576 CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502 PHONc o04-3321 3 ~x,3 MU..t~2 LAN/ P~1'lna~ - To~.1YRrIVE Foe: JAMES ~ DELonls S!,lc/f~L'ti-l 52'd5 ,C'R',M~c/O w~15. GEZUT~dc- ~n/uT o/' LO GQTIJ/J: T'/}X Lui 36, ZlVs ¢ D '-i~JJ IS IJ/}1T'; Juc.y 7.8/ IgBa I~/u:~~/Len 6y; G/}cy r, K4tsEr l~oyDa-z.~ Sve.n,.~2S h/iE0/=~i70, 02 G v' St/..t ~o,C LoT Zl ~OE$ Sci/dQ.. ~ eq•s6'zo" w SA/_11Td2y SC-'cut~L _....Id ._ .: .C~ Z23. Lu PA/~CEL ,~o, r Z~, C700 t S. F. O.s7 t ,ate ~l Q ~\ .....__.... ~ SAIL-I ': , ~' 1~ d ~ W a o V Z ~ N ' ~ W ;c e ~ N P. ~ ~ ~s _ _ 4.~ Vr N w v ~_ I I - S09°Z 'E t6 ' --I~j--.__... .. ~ _....... \ .P. _ .. ti .. .. ~_ ~ ___ .. _ ~ F I .!. _ 1 a . Fo. 3t¢ ` I. piu ~- SEF F/tRJ SvR~ .~~ REGISTERED PROFESSIONA L ,. _: LAND SURVEYOR ~3 G., cam. l~~ OREGON. JULY 18. 1987 GARY D. KAISER NO, B03 +f7 _..._. ... .. .~ 4~ s. zcs 6.Iq' s _ _._.._. _.__ . I ,claw 13ouvogny \ Q6//.1G G2E7J~Tt.Y! C' PA-QCEZ I,J,,. 2 N 6 ~1, GUU f s ~ ~ ~' . . ©. c}-4 ~- ,~. ~l~y s G io 'Y se , L _ __ .._.._. ~z. ~, i~ ~ S s. S~ y ti ~9''m~ 6 \s~ r ~~ `~ Ex • ~ '~~ ` ~~ oe ~ xi 24~ "~>.~ 1y91' 10 9 •!4y s 8 9$ ,~ `• 80ES AVENUE»o• • 241 1t>J yap 111 .w 1 ''°. 7 ~vo.7i t~ 207 239u, 204 ~70.~ 15ti7. ~dG~]e ~ ~~ °' 213 o N . ~ !T ~ s. `wa r 6 • 6 .. o) • 16 15 ~ ss3... rGG .. I,• Im.,d inm .. aza•G39S• (P- • .,...•• ~ P222:~... 2~4 g 214 28 ~ } 2~1~~ °~ ~ 7' ~ Q • 223 ~ r :~ 227 220 3 5 :sv.ae• 22. n e'•.; :. ,.- " 215 •~'~ 233 ~ e.2~z31 236 a \ x+ a .e ~ \ ~ ~ ~ L G7 4 \ 224 ~ Z 226 219 sssas' _ a 216 ~ a ~ •' x,zca. o ~ zaz• 18 13 s::• Q y ~ ,. ••• Q 23_5 ~+ : , 232 to '~ ~ 200 ~ c J B. ~~ ° ~ 3 asasa.. as 12. /~~1 Z~ 218 :., 217 1-..203 .. 225 ~\ \\ { . ~ szsc•alsaa•19 12 w fi P ~ ~ ~,>.or 208 i. \ \ za Y _ _ x{471 :, ,. =.t r zoz e. _ ~n • WJS'o) ~ \ ~ .. IN.'i •.L by -' -iY 1b 291 1 -.:. Iq.1f'All GiY~G \ 4P. 1'r. w4 ~• ,lP / I I y.~/~7//.!/ .1Q..94.38 HLN _.~ _.. (p Iw ~.~ /~ / V /I ,. Y.. !Y. • ` YY W .M.r1 O 11Y. 9G .CO . ~ 300'c-a :, ~~ , 1200 ~ 1300 ~• v. o I r4 ~• , ~ .~..0 sf ~ ~ a, a f~ ~ ~". ~ .: tr er 1~.. .,g4o ; • r. CPS ~ ~ -.F ~' r a , \ 1 •1 i ~ _. I ~ ~ u ~b / ~o ~ ~~~ ~ A N X XN ~ ~ ~X ~~~ II ~ I ~ ~` X X I U U, ~x X / l "" ~ ~X arvowAVa M N_ X N o ~oo ~X ~~ P N X m N ~~J 1 ~lO, -I ~ ' N.X m `.l N i ~ x ^ n/ i Y ~ /F ~~/~ / ~. x~~ i ~~' ,. ~d~ / // / N F W W V C ~~~ N F '. f N W N W Q Q U f N / 0 N 1(\f~J~I' 0 X V N O i ' € ~ % _ ~/ i .. ~i~% %,, CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WORKS DEPART:TcNT STAFF REPORT--- Preliminary Plan Review Date: July 21, 1988 Project: Minor Land Partition - Delores Shehorn 37 2W 34D, Tax Lot 200 After review of this request, all utilities are available to the property for the existing structures at 5285 Raymond Way. Any future buildings would require ,the installation of the services for this property. at the owner's expense. Raymond Way is presently a non-standard street under the jurisdiction of Jackson County. At some point in time transfer of these streets would require upgrading to City standards. This would require a 36-inch curb-to-curb-street, curbs and gutters, sidewalks, storm drains, and streetlights. Recommendations: ._ _ 1. Have. the property owner ~~nremonstrate~gainst the formation of an improvement district for the construction of-'street, storm drainage, streetlighting, sidewalks, and curb and gutter .improvements. to the streets in the Boes Subdivision. 2. The property owner shall sign a deferred improvement agreement for the improvements as mentioned in #1 above. LRB/mah ce: File - Construction/Preliminary Plan Review PUBWKS SHEHORN.MLP I .~ 7 CX.F PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO GRANT A MINOR PARTITION OF LAND WHEREAS, on August 2, 1988, Delores Shehorn filed an application for a minor partition of land located at 5285 Raymond Way further described as Jackson County map page 36 2W 34D, tax lot 200; and WHEREAS, the agenda including the public meeting was posted at the Central Point Library, Central Paint Post Office, Central Point Fire Station, and Central Point City Hall; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on August 2, 1988 the Planning Commission held a review of tha proposal, provided opportunity for testimony from proponents and opponents, and received a planning staff report; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the review and public hearing, the planning Commission made a motion to provide recommendation for approval tc the City Council; now, therefore, ~. BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Central Point Planning Commission recommends to the City of Central Point. City Council that the minor partition of land be ap- proUed subject to the following condition:, That the applicant execute.a deferred improvement agreement consenting to inclusion in any future local improvement districts for storm drainage, streetlights, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, or street improvements, or, any com- bination of the same, further .agreeing not to remonstrate'. against any such improvements, and providing that the same shall be recorded in the Jackson County Deed Records and shall be binding upon applicant's heirs, successors or assigns and shall run with the land hereinabove described. Passed by the Planning Commission this day of August, 1988, and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of , 1988. Planning Commission Chairman _ ATTEST: Planning Co~cmiission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. ~ r CX. --- S T A F F R E PO R T--- To: Planning Commission Date: .July 19, 1988 From: Randy Kugler, Administrative Assistant & Acting Planning Director Re: Review and recommendation to the City Council regarding an annexation re- quest of approximately 115 acres bounded generally by East Pine Street, Hamrick Road, Beebe Road, and Gebhard Road, and to withdraw same from Jackson County Fire District #3 and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority On May 20,-1988, the City received a formal petition from Erma Layton, 1760 East Pine Street, requesting consideration for annexation of the above-described area. The proposed territory represents consent by 58~ of the registered voters and SSo of the acreage under the double majority method of annexation. Staff has worked with the applicant in securing. the necessary petitions so that any questions that were asked could be addressed directly by a City representa- tive. When possible, those individuals requesting to be left out of the annexa- tion were accommodated. To this end, the mobile home park on East Pine Street has been excluded. Staff has. attempted to create a territory which would meet both statutory requirements and-also represent logical boundaries. For the Commission's information, 2 have included a copy of the recently adopted City Annexation Policy. This proposal is consistent with the policy objective of maintaining a surplus of urbanizable land for future growth and development. The following exhibits are included: Exhibit A - Certificate of Posting of agenda for Planning Commission meeting held. August 2, 1988; Exhibit B - Map of area proposed for annexation (separate document); Exhibit C - City Annexation Policy. RK/mah Attachments PCWORK SREPANX 1 ~ ~. •';t~ ~~ C ~ ~~ OREGp~ THE HEART OF THE ROGUE RYVER VALLEY I, THE FOLLOIdING DATE, FOR THE r7~+~,,,,H....-s t, FOR NEAR ,: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING ..~; (~~ 0~!~ z 5 i98~ o' L~i~H,.LL~,~..~Lv_n-, ~ c.-•. ~..~.~. ,~.•+ ~~. c,,.u~' SIGNATURE DATE ~ - zS •uu P.O. BOX 3576 CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502 PHONE664-3321 _, CERTIFY THAT ON _, I POSTED AN AGENDA ~ l `l v'~ C"`~~`' ~~ AT OP, ~ ~ Ex, A CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ANNE}[ATION POLICY The City of Central Point recognizes the process of annexation as a vehicle to provide for the orderly and economic extension of public services. Cities have services to offer unincorporated areas within the Urban Growth Boundary which provide for the orderly conversion of urbanizable tc urban land. Based on the past and present"investment of State and local resources devoted to land use plan- ning, cities will remain as the logical provider of these public services. The undeveloped urbanizab~ ea within the urban growth boundary, separating urban and urbaniz and rom rural land, has been carefully calculated to in- clude an adequate supply to meet demand far a projected population of 16,000 through the end of the planning period (2000). This needs analysis .includes com- mercial, industrial and residentially zoned acreage.. In order to maintain an "adequate" supply of available surplus land to allow devel- opment to occur, annexation must take place in advance of demand in order to allow far the provision of public capital improvements, such as sewer mains, arterial streets, and water lines. Most capital improvement programs are "middle-range" type plans geared three to six years into the future. The time between annexation and the point of finished construction usually involves several steps: 1) The actual annexation of the land with accompanying public hearing pro- cesses. 2) Filing and approval of a subdivision or planned unit development with accompanying public hearing., processes. 3) Extension of public capital improvements in accordance with programming, funding availability and local interest in formation of Local Improvement Dis- tricts. 4) Construction of the private development including local extension of streets, sidewalks, sewers, water and electricity, and construction of dwelling units or businesses. The time period between initiating annexation and sale of a home or opening of a business varies but can easily take from two to six yeazs. Large scale and timely annexations of undeveloped and underdeveloped areas should be encouraged to enhance the opportunity for compact urban growth, an efficient land use pattern, and a well-planned supporting arterial street system. ANNEXPOL.88/ADMINI ~ I ~X,~ A si:t to ten year surplus of urbanizable Land is a reasonable range which will not only allow for the conversion of urbanizable to urban land through annexation but will allow the City the opportunity and flexibility to plan for and provide urban . services on a large scale. The six-year minimum will allow the City of Central Point to develop a coordinated capital improvement program in accordance with the adopted comprehensive plan. Such coordinated capital improvement programs can and should be closely related to implementation of annexation plans. A major goal of the City of Central Point is to maintain a surplus of urbanizable land based on the level of development 'that has taken place over the past 6 to 10 years. While this goal is especially reledant for residential land, it has equal applicability for other land use categories when used in conjunction with past trends and Comprehensive Plan goals dealing with promotion of economic development and diversity. ANNEXPOL.88/ADMINI jz Ex. G STAFF REPORT T0: Planning Commissionmembers FROM: Randy Kugler, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Site Plan Review - 24-unit Multiple Family Dwelling Development on North Tenth Street, Submitted by John Sleppy DATE: 28 July 1988 This proposal calls for the construction of 4, 2-story six unit dwell- ings. C.P.M. C. Chapter 17.72 contains standards required for a site plan to .which the Planning Commission may .refer for their review. All yard setbacks have been met including the special setback along Tenth Street which will provide for the future widening to a second- ary arterial standard. Landscaped areas will be located in all required yard areas includ- ing the special setback area along Tenth Street. Required offstreet parking will be addressed during the variance request. Staff has included copies of the record from the 1979 minor partition request which indicate the developer's responsibility for improving Laurel Street. The City is presently working on putting a street LID together on Laurel Street and the Commission may wish to follow the Public Works Director's suggestion that the subject property owners enter into a Deferred Improvement Agreement for this project. The minutes of the 1979 Planning Commission meeting indicate that this would be an acceptable alternative to requiring the developer to pay for all improvement costs. The following exhibits are included for the Commissioners' review: Exhibit A - Certificate of Posting of Planning Commission Meeting agenda. Exhibit B - Jackson County Tax Assessor's map Exhibit C - Aerial map Exhibit D - Site Plan separate document) Exhibit E - Public Works Director's report Exhibit F - February 20, 1979 Planning Commissicn minutes and staff report. RK:rip ends . 24UNTS72.88/RKCORR } i, i i ~3 ,~T .~~ C V OR ~GO~ P.O. 80X3576 CENTRAL POINT, OFEGON 97502 PHONE664-3321 _. THE HEART OF THE ' ' RCGUE RNER VALLEY CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I , ~cµ.". THE FOILOIdING DATE, ~ , FOR THE rY .,7(,;ir~ww« .(~..u,,,,~ ' ~,,, FOR ~(~~~-r~.~...:...,~' c-,.,. i~ " NEAR 1: Ca~ ir~.~ 2~ (~7u`~ _ c w ~. ,..CERTIFY THAT ON I POSTED AN AGENDA j'~~~.,: ,'}7x'z,73 ~AT OP. i 3of 7.3os 7/«~ 7r o f v a SIGNATURE f ~. DATE 7 "~ 5 u~ Ex ~ r ~y pa ~~ ~ ~~, N~ ~ y~~ ~~~ ,~, ~~ ~ ~ ~s~ i NI 6 • ,~ s J r~ l ~ ~ l ,0a ~ 6` M' ~~ ~~ s ~e ~~ ~ ` TH STREET w H .~ O r* ., ,,, f r~ :,.. r ~. ~. ID m ~ r N ~A :~ 1. ,~ 6 /~. ,~ y5 r=2r2r~ d ~~ Sa~Gp, ~= ~ :; _ J.`.f I .cT1 a ;1 ^- •-~ w4~ 11 MI -_-_ V 1 ~ Q O >, N~ 1 W ~ O J~ 1 8 `~~I 1 ~• ~ 01~ .\ ~ ~J~ ~ ,/ 1 •, ~, ~ .. • . _ _ _ _ y _ ~ ~ _-'=~_ ,~ M~ O ? P8 (•\ -P N `. • I aIC n, ~~ ~4 I __ _leia. ro' _ 1 -' aar: Ia --- ~. • a7 - 2w ~2ea a J . . ~ ~, , k; 1. 1 ( 4 4 1' / I. a _ ... I P • t ~ y. T ,: { a ql _ ~ i ` 1 • ~ h r ~ \ /. s~ S~ a't I } -,,,•....c ~ w ~~ wr4'•. M.~ 1 y -a. y 4 '.• ~ / ~ " ( ~F _...v ~~~ 1 ~ 1 - f • ~ TT""" ~': ., :1Jile~tN a4 (~t it.. .~'R r ~1x ~~ IT ~~ a: t~ iMry. ~ IY l., ~ • , ~~ ~ i:r*: -rr.; •-il y '} t • ~ 15 .J71 Y' y~ a ~ I '•1 p ~ ° ro "+gl x-"! ' iF'. - 'R ~ .tT,. N N y.. J.D~? O ~u~~1, I;Ig ~~` 1~ j ~ \YY~ ~~j ~O 4 J, T. \' J y~ --_.IZn .i' -- A, ry 1 V N ~ N ~ ~ p y $ o m juf i~• V . n~~tJl I~ *- " NNNN ~ ~ o ~. W m (P cA T 1 Iu.ad' ~ r.li' 'nJ/,w ,i II I~ ~I ~~ 11 a= 1 \ // \~ °~ ~ %i t . ~ O c~ O O O a O~ Q O. C~ x f N ' / ~` X ~~ N AX N r N N o / ~< / 0 ^ / d N ~/ p N Xb y N s / V / \ O U ~~ [\+\/' `~ \ V; i , f~ + Q + ~,~ /~ O~ " O < Q O ~s / N ///1 m / ~OXN~ ~. /1 . ` n o ~l' II W a , ~ oa ~ f W 7 Q Q Z LL J LL y i ~ x n mx i m ~ X N N N ~. ^ ul o o o~ - m O N X aO Y- y~. /m k~ N ' ~ ~ p..._ ~ ~ ,- P ? XN N C r--ti ~ CENTRAL POINT PUBLIC WCRKS DEPARTMENT S T A F F R E P O R T PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW Property Owner: John Sleppy Property: T37 S R2W Section 2CB, Tax lots 7301, 7303, 7305 and 7306. Total Acreage: .91 acres Zoning: R-3 Street Improvements Existing Conditions: ,Abutting Streets - 1. North Tenth Street, Secondary arterial 2. Laurel Street, local street Rights-of-Way - 1. North Tenth Street - 60 feet 2. Laurel Street - 50 feet Street width curb-to-curb - 1. North Tenth Street - 44 feet 2. Laurel Street - unimproved Required Conditions: Right-of-way 1. North Tenth Street - 60 feet 2. Laurel Street - 50 feet Street width curb-to-curb - 1. North Tenth Street - 40 feet 2. Laurel Street - 36 feet. A. North Tenth Street has been previously widened; however, sidewalks and driveway approaches shall be installed as a part of this pro3'ect. ~/~y~H 4 a B. Ingress/Egress to the property shall be accomplished by 2 driveway / ~'6~:~/~ approaches; 1 on Tax Lot 7303 and 1 on Tax Lot 7306. Adequate width ~~;;~,, shall be included to allow access of trucks for moving and deliveries. C. Laurel Street is an unimproved street and the developer will be responsible for improving the street adjacent to his property with street, sidewalk, street lights, curb and gutter, and storm drainage improvements. Since a Local Improvement District (L.L D.) would be required to construct these improvements the owner--will= n a Deferred Improvement Agreement which will includ anon-remonstrant clause for formation of this~L.I.D. D. Adequate signing shall be installed at each driveway approach ac- cording to the manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices to allow. for proper traffic control at these locations. SLEPPY72.88/LBCORR / 7 Ex. ~ Sanitary Sewer Improvements Existing Conditions - 1. - No service laterals exist to the property from either North Tenth or Laurel. ' 2. Manhole H61 is located at theinter- section of Laurel/No. Tenth streets, and Manhole G65 is located, at the intersection of No._Ninth/Laurel streets.. Required Conditions A. Service can be provided by connecting a service from a manhole at either location: However, verification of grade must be confirmed prior to final plan approval. The 24" main on North Tenth is deep 10 feet plus. Consideration should be given to extending the line on Laurel and North Ninth Streets. Replacement of the 24" line will occur Spring '89. All construction shall be done to City of Central Point Standards. B. A manhole shall be the connection point for all new or replacement services over 4" in diameter. C. Each building shall have a separate service lateral into a sewer main from the building. Water Improvements A. An 8" waterline exists on North Tenth Street which will be the connection point for service to the development. The service main shall be 6" and a 2-way valve shall be installed. B. Separate meters shall be required for each building to be located within an easement for repair and maintenance. C. A separate meter shall be installed for the irrigation system for billing of sewer direct from metered water which returns to the Water Quality Treatment plant. Storm Drainage Improvements A. The developer shall provide a calculation of storm water discharge by a registered civil engineer for the development. B. A11 on-site storm drainage shall be transported through pipes from the developer's property to the City system. C. The developer shall connect the storm system to the City system as required by the Public Works Director. Other Utilities A. Developer to work with power, gas, cable TV and telephone companies to determine required improvements in the public right-of-way to serve S ~x. E the property. These plans shall be included with the construction drawings. Park Dedication Fee A. The developer shall submit a park dedication fee in the amount of $200/dwelling unit. Other Requirements A. All construction shall be as required by Federal, State, County and local legislation and the Uniform Standard.Details and Specifications of the City of Central Point. B. The City reviews these plans based on the information provided by the developer. In any""case, the City is not responsible 'for additional conditions placed on the project due either to change in the Prelimi- nary Plan by the owner, or final construction documents being-more detailed. LB:rip I,. SLEPPY72.88/LBCORR i ~ Ex, E k E k 0 R A N D U k 20 Febrnars 1979 TO• Chairman kckanama & Planning Commission kembers FROS[: R. J. Ritchey, Building Official SUBJECT: Minor Partition Request for property located at J.C. map 37 2W 2CB; Part of Tac Lot 7301 near Tenth and Laurel Streets - Applicant John Blair - Use Zone R-3 1. North portion of Taa Lot 7301 xas partitioned April 18, 1978. This partitioning request will involve the remainder of that lot. 2. Partitioning will result in 3 parcels with characteristics as follows: Parcel. Reqd Area Actual Area Frontage Reqd Actual Front. ~1 6,000~sq.ft. 10,.233 s.f.' 60 89.04' r~2 6,000 " " 9,125 " " 60 102.3491.74' ~3 7,000 " " 9,390 " " 70 90.00' (l~b ratio is satisfactory oa all parcels; less than 2.5~ 3. Red Cedar Subdivision Siiaor Partitioning conditions that are applicabYe are: A. Map mast be submitted showing enact manner Iots are to be partitioned; using a scale of 1" 100' oa sheet of 18"%24" paper by Developers B. Developer to construct curbs, gutters, sidewalks, paving, storm drains, 8" sewer, 8" water lines per City specs.-for a standard ' 36' wide paved street on Laurel at ouch time adjacent property is developed.. Location of storm drains be determined by Public 1Yorks. C. Developer to also provide at the same time a deed for a 12' radios proposed Tenth Street right-of-way N ~ e D.. Owners mast sign a correction deed prepared by the City, for proposed Tenth Street right-of-way. ' E. Eaisting sexer line on Lot.#2 ~origiaal petition to remain a private ' sewer line Yor joint use of the two 4-plea buildings only; and the City will maintain that portion of the line from the manhole easterly, the Developers to maintain-the private line.xesterlp. F. If the apartments are sold to different owners an agreement to be drawn np to share maintenance of the sexer line xesterly of the manhole. H. Develo~rsZ ree to are-imbnrsement of street improvements at time Tenth Sts et goes into a Local Improvement District. ~~ fix. ~ Planning Commiss~n )(eetirtg )[inutes -February 20, 1979 City Council Chan6ers Meeting opened at 7:33 F.1 by Chairman Mcuanz=.a. Ro11 call found )tembers Emery, IIansen, IIillyer, Loveland, Vordby, Thelen and Chairman McManama. Those absent were Members )[essmer and Waldron. Also present were City Administrator Kucera, Hldg. Official Ritchey, Secretary Stamper and many interested people in the audience including Council people Halley and Rayburn. Minutes of the February 6, 1979 .meeting were approved in motion by Hansen second by Thalen and carried with all is favor. No-~ correspondence was reported. Na Old Business was pending. New Business Public Hearing Yor a Conditional Use Request Yor Dale Van {Yep, applicant Yor property at 524 Oak Street was re-opened. The matter had been tabled Yrom the January 16, 1979 meeting. Mr. Van fley's petition was Yor use as a ,professional office is the house is the.R-3 Zoae of Block 39 of Original Town. Chairman Ma)(anama read public hearing proceedings requirements. Mr.. Van 1Yey was first to;.speak. He informed all that he has a tenant to use the hoase as a CPA office with lease; will remodel the existing atrnctnre to bring it up to code, if needed; will be able to provide adequate off- . atreet parking in rear. Staff report presented by Bldg. Official Ritchey, recommending removal oY existing porch on south side of house, storage building of east side of lot; construct new driveway approach and driveway to rear of lot from Oak Street to City standards; provide all-weather surface a't'rear-of lot-, and Change oY Occupanep will determine node requirements of possible remodelling. Proponents invited to speak. No one came forth. Opponents invited to speak. bfrs. Ruby Latvala, lI5 So. Fifth Street gneatioaed if change of use would have to come back before Planning Commission, or if a ' new structure is placed on the lot, also. Bldg. Official regiied "yes'!'to both oY her gnestiona. No one else came forth. Chairman McManama closed the public portion of the h eariag. Conditional IIse hearing procedure forms filled by Vice-Chairman Emery to become part of .the report. Member IIansen made motion to approve the Conditional IIse request based on Staff Report, seconded by Nordby. Roll Call vote, all in favor and carried. Minor Partition request by John 1Y. Blair, applicant present, for division of southerly portion of property known as Tax Lot 7301, J.C. map 37 21Y 2CB at 10th and Laurel Street in the R-3 .Zone. Staff report presented by Bldg. Official Ritchey, 5 items containing conditions 4rom earlier minor partition of Taa Lot 7301 segregation 1978. Discussion oa estabiiahing as Loaal Improve- ment District for property owners on south aide oY Laurel Street for atreet improvements. -0ity Administrator Kaaera will contact Citp Attorney Carter to check an adjacent propertyowners sharing of reaponsibilitiea. Mr. Ritchey informed Commission that separation oY deeds on the 3 lots being partitioned mast be recorded with Aaseasor's office prior to issuance of building permits. Discussion an atreet improvements on Laurel Street; if opportunity does present itself is the future, the Planning Commission will take steps for sharing of street improvement.costs. No further discussion. Motion by Emery, second by OIl IlLL4Ca Ol ¢CYLLL61') GV, aa.a - ~ - ~ y.~ x. r Hansen to approve minor partition request based on stipulations of Staff ~ ~ T. report. Hy roll call w te. All is fawr, carried. ~ I x` -~ STAFF REPORT T0: Planning Commissionmembers FROM: Randy Kugler, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT: Variance for Two required on-site parking spaces associated with a 24-unit multiple family dwelling development to be constructed on North Tenth Street in an R-3 zone (37 2W 2CB, Tax Lots 7100, 7101, 7301, 7303, 7305 and 7306) submitted by John Sleppy. DATE: 28 July 1988 In order to meet all required setbacks and provide for a safely de- signed parking facility, a variance for two spaces is requested. While there are some "creative" means available to incorporate the two neces- sary spaces, it would entail lessening the overall parking design effi- ciency and reducing landscaped areas. With approval. of the variance, 96~ of the required parking is still provided. Central Point Municipal Code Sectiod 17.64.040 A, 2. requires two spac- es per dwelling unit plus one per four units for guest parking. -The applicant has provided the required number of covered spaces and has also made use of his allotment of compact car spaces. Section 17.80.010 specifies the conditions which must be met in order for the Planning Commission to grant a variance. Notice of the request was sent to propertyowners within a 200-foot radius of the subject properties. The following exhibits are included: Exhibit A - Notice of Public Hearing Exhibit B - Certificate of posting of Notice (posting of Public Hearing Notice) Exhibit C - Site Plan (separate document) Exhibit D - Resolution approving the variance findings. RK:rip encls. ~' lOPRKN72.88/RKCORR ~~ J~./ 155 SO. SECOND ST. P.0. BOX 3576 CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502 PHONE 665-3321 THE HEART CF THE ROGUE RIVER VALLEY CITY OF CENTRAL POINT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Central Point Planning Commission will review at a public hearing an application for a variance from John Sleppy for two required on-site parking spaces associated with a 24-unit multiple-family dwelling development to be constructed on Tenth Street, Central Point, in ah R-3 zone. Said property is fur- ther described as Jackson County Tax Assessor's map page 37 2W 2CB, tax lots 7100, 7101, 7301, 7303, 7305 and 7306. This public hearing will be held at 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, August 2, 1988, in the Central Point Council Chambers, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Randy Kugler Planning Department City of Central Point Date: August 2, 1988 Time: 7:00 P.M. Place: Council Chambers 155 South Second Street P. 0. Box 3576 Central Point, OR 97501 Please publish in the Medford Mail Tribune on July 29 and 31, 1988 and provide affidavit of publication. i ,• PH80288.PC/RKCORR Z3 ~x. ~ / '. Y!• ~ i ~ e ~~ e ~: J \o~/ 80X3576 CENTRAL PC~NT, OfiEGCN 97502 PHONE664-3321 THE c.TE:,RT OF THE ROGUE RNER VALLEY CERTIFICATE OF POSTING s .L9ZLINc I, ;h~~ ~~.~ ,CERTIFY THAT ON T4E FOLL06lING DATE. ' /~ ~ ~ ~//` y I POSTED A PUBLIC NUTIC"c OF A ~'l~i /l _ n,,u.~~c ~^M FOR ~"'~~"P ~ 2 C ~'~'~'J~"~ 0 ~( ti"`~z `~T OR NEAR 1. ~~ - L .~ 4. U - AND MAILED SAME PUBLIC NOTICE TO THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY SITUATED WITHIN A TWO HUNDRED FOOT .RADIUS OF THE BOUNDARIES OF .THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. n SIGNATURE `~`` DATE 7 ' ? / ' v f~ ,~ 2 `-~ fix, b PLANNING COtR4ISSI0N RESOLUTION N0. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS AND APPROVING THE VARIANCE OF JOHN SLEPPY WHEREAS, an application for a variance for the reduction of the required number of off-street parking spaces from 54 to 52 for a 24- unit multiple family dwelling development within the City and more particularly described as Jackson County Tax Assessor's map page 37 2W 2CB Tax Lots 7100, 7101, 7301, 7303, 7305 and 7306, and; WHEREAS, theCentral Point Planning Commission has reviewed and approved the application at a public hearing held on the 2nd day of August, 1988; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The relevant criteria applicable to the within appli- cation is Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 17.80 which describes the conditions the Planning Cortunission must consider in order to grant a variance. Section 2. The planning Commission hereby finds as follows; The requests meets or is not applicable to the criteria for granting a variance because: 1. Not applicable 2. Not applicable 3. Not applicable 4. Not applicable 5. The variance will not have any adverse impact upon the neighborhood because the applicant will follow all requirements of the Uniform Building Cade and Uniform Fire Code far required covered parking structures. 6. The variance will involve utilization of R-3 zoned property and still provide an area for 96~ of the required off-street parking. Planning Commission Reso. - Page 1 Z.5 ~x . .~ Section 3. The Planning Commission finds that the record herein and the findings therefrom support the conclusion that the proposal is in compliance with the applicable standards of the City's Zoning Code. The proposed variance is hereby approved subject to compliance with the relevant requirements of the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Cade. Passed by the Planning Commission on , 1988, and signed by me in authentication of its .passage this day of 1988. ~ Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST: Planning Commission Secretary. Planning Commission Reso. - page 2 26 ~X , J *-r T T ~`~ L• v ~~- _. `i --'1•~ L.i-~: 155 S. Second Street ~^ P.O. Box 3275 Wu~~ ~~ ~©Ve~'I1T~T1eT1tS Central Point, OR 97502 503-664-6674 July 29, 1988 T0: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Wes Reynolds, RVCOG Senior Planner RE: Comprehensive Plan Revisions and Periodic Review In the coming year the city will be completing amendments to those parts of the municipal code that govern land use. It now appears that'the code revisions may end up as part of the overall package of revisions to the Comprehensive Plan's periodic review. Periodic review formally begins for Central Point in February 1989, but in substance we have already started. Several parts of the Comprehensive Plan need to be updated in recognition of changing circumstances. There are also some changes needed to comply with new state administrative rules for Goal 9 (Economic Development) and Goal 11 (Public Facilities). It will also be necessary to review the city's progress in acheiving the tasks called for in plan policies. As it now stands, the Comprehensive Plan is very long and unwieldy. That is largely a result of all the issues that had to be addressed in order .to gain state acknowledgement. Although, state requirements must still be met, the city should treat periodic review as a chance to make the plan more focussed and useful. It will be especially important for the commission and council to consider -- What are the goals and objectives of Central Point? What kind of community do we want in the future? What policies shall we follow to acheive our goals? As a start to considering the Comprehensive Plan, I have attached a suggested outline for a revised plan. Next month we will start to review updated plan elements and consider policy statements. The process will take much of the next year since the plan includes 433 pages of text and 243 policies. I look forward to a continuation of the good working relationship we have had over the past year. 2~ .~ Central Point COMPREHENSIVE PLaN ORDER OF PRESENTATION PREFACE I. INTRO~CTION ~ (I-1 through i-9)~ ~~~~ f .~Q, i. PLANNING AREA CHARACTERISTICS (II-1 through ii-12) III. URBANIZATION (III-1 through III-80) -~6`'~ PLAN SUMMARY (IV-1 through IV-24) ~' f f ~~t' r ~ (`` V. HOUSING ELEMENT (V-1 through V-37) VI. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT (VI-1 through VI-49) VII. PARKS & RECREATION ELEMENT (VII-1 through VII-34) VIII. PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES ELEMENT (VIII-1 through 36) pEVE~oPyHF,/r- IX. ECONOMIC`ELEMENT (IX-1 through IX-29) X. ENERGY U~'~LI-er"rrrvi:- & CONSERVATION ELEMENT (X-1 through X-22) XI. CIRCULATION/TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT (XI-1 through XI-28) (~ ~. XII. LAND USE ELEMENT (XII-1 through XII-32) 28 ,. s.::~:._:.:.: . --- STAFF REPORT--- To: Planning Commission Date: July 19, 1988 From: Randy Kugler, Administrative Assistant & Acting Planning Director Re: Fees for Land Use Applications The report submitted by Wes Reynolds, Rogue Valley Council of Governments, contains a thorough analysis of this topic. Staff would agree with the con- clusions reached in this study and is asking the Commission to consider that the following be discussed for a later formal review and recommendation to the City Council. 1. Creation of a fee section in both Titles 16 and 17 to consolidate fee schedules. 2. Creation of a site plan review fee ($50.00?) 3. Creation of an appeal fee ($50.00?) 4. Formalization or modification of the present policy of charging full fees for concurrent reviews (i.e., $100.00 for a conditional use permit and $100.00 for a variance). RK/mah Attachment PCWORK LUFEES 2~ ROGUE VALLEY Council of Governments INTEROFFICE MEMO T17: City of Central Point FROnn: Wes Reynolds, Senlor Planner SUBJECT Fees for land use applications DATE: June 8, 1988.. The City currently charges fees for a variety of land use actions. The fees are established in various sections of the municipal code. The amounts xere set at times ranging from 1963 to 1983 and vary significantly in .the .extent to .which they cover the actual or average coat of processing land u'se actions. Oregon Revised Statutes 227.175(1) allows a city to "establish foes charged for processing permits at an amount no more than the. actual or average cost of providing that service." I gm certain that - Central Point's current fees. do not cover the city's costs, although there are reasons that may be appropriate. Beyond what statute allows dictates, there are several issues to be considered in the establishment of a fee for land use actions: 1. the fees as a source of city revenues; 2. the relation of-fees to other toots the ,city requires developers to pay; 3. the fact that fees .for land use actions .are not entirely a "user fee"; 4. fees as means to discourage "frivolous" applications or appeals; and 5. assuring that the appropriate fees are charged at the time of application. -~ Land use fees as a source of city revenues have amounted to $597 for the first ten months in 1987-88, $1,225 in 1986-87, and $2,342 in 1985-86. This does not include building permit fee s, or other costa that were not for processing of land use applications. This. has obviously been a minor aspect of city revenues and a small. fraction of the city's costs for planning and zoning. There are reasons not to have the fees charged for land use actions support the city's full costa of processing the action. A mafor reason is that there is much more at stake in getting developers to assume the coats of installing needed improvements. The city is far better off subsidizing the permitting process while getting improvements installed without subsidy rather than the other way around. -1- 3~ Central Point -- Fees for land use applications page 2 Another reason to not seek application fees for the full cost of planning .actions is that they are not entirely a "user fee". The City also evaluates the interests of neighbors, future owners and the general public, as well as the applicant's interests in a project. The public interest in evaluating land use actions justifies some general fund expenditure for this function. To assist your evaluation of the "competitiveness" of the City I have attached fee schedules of several neighboring cities, and a summary from a recent BGRS study. Fees"are cited at aeveral places in the Central Point Municipal Code: 17.56.040: $50 for nonconforming use evaluation No fee for Site Reviews? 17.60.190 (D): $25 for Home Occupation (non-refundable) 17".76.020: $100-fee for Conditional Use Permits 1'7.8D.010 (B): $100 fee for Variances 17.88.030: $325 fee for zone changes plus more if needed. No fee for 'plan amendments (17.96.020) Title 16: 16.20.030 to 16.20.050: Fees in lieu of land dedication. 16.24.010: $100 for preliminary plat. 16.28.020: Final plat filing fee of $45 to more than $540 depending on the number of lots. 16.36.010: $100 for Variance. 16.44.030: $l00 for Partitions (major or minor). No fee for conversion plans (16.38). No fee for subdivision appeals. No fee for lot line adjustments. 1.20.040: Annex $325 plus more if needed 1.24: No fee for any appeals? It would behoove the city to create a section on fees in both Title 16 and 17 and to clarify how fees are to be 'handled for concurrent reviews, when fees are refundable if at all, etc. Staff may have other ideas on how to revise fees and related procedures. Attachments -2- 31 f1 J~7~. n ~v 18.108.150 Effect. No building or zoning permit shall be issued for ~ any action under this Title until the effective date for-such action. An appeal from the Commis=_ion decision shall. stay permit .issuance until .action-by the Council. If the .Council fi.nds..in favor of the applicant, the permit shall be issued immediately thereafter. ~, 18.108.160 Aoolicat•ton deadline. All applications for he~~ring,before the Planning Commissicn shall be submitted three calendar weeks before the first regular meeting of any given month. This shalF @~t apply in the case of text or map changes to the Comprehensive Plan r implementing ordinances, in which case application shall be made six weeks prior to the meeting. 18.108.170 Fees. Fees for applications under this Title, 'and for the related land use actions of annexation and comprehensive plan amendments shalt be as follows: -(fees are non-refundable,.. except as noted) Plan or Ordinance Changes; 5500., plus 5250. on each Annexations and Urban Growth Boundary concurrent action on the Amendments property. Planned Unit Development 5200. minimum, plus $20,. Subdivisions, Major & Minor Land per lot for the first 10 Partitions lots; $5. per lot thereafter. Minor Land Partitions $100. minimum for administrative requiring administration - items plus $10. per lot. approval only. ~ Variance, Conditional Use Permit $50. minimum, plus $10. for -each $1,000. of value to 520,000. $5.`per 51,000. of value thereafter, • total fee not to exceed $250. for a variance or $500. for a conditional use permit. Site Review $50. minimum, plus $5. per residential unit or each 100 square feet of commercial floor space, or each 100 square feet of industrial space,-the latter not to exceed $500. Signs ~ .510. plus 51. per square foot. Appeal .from Commission decisions. 550. all but $10. of which is refundable if appeal is successful. 18.108.180 Council or Commission may initiate drocedures. The Planning Commission or City Council may initiate any Type I, Il, or III procedure by resolution by the respected body. 3z: 10.061 Medford Code 10.070 1D.06T' Duty to`Enforce. ' The approving authority (P lanning'Commission, Site Plan and Architectural Commission, and Planning Director) or Ctty Council, on appeal, shell refuse approval of any development permit application not in conformity herewith, and subJect to the provisions of state law. Ali officials, departments, officers, and employees of the city vested' with the authority to issue permits or certificates shall not issue any such permits or certificates which conflict with any provisions of th(s chapter, or which purport to authorize or permit the development of any land where compliance with all applicable provisions of this chapter have not been met. Any such permit or authorization which may be issued. _ ____. 1n conflict herewith .s hall be void and of no force or effect. ' Other then as above set forth, the Planning Director or his designee shall be the official responsible for the enforcement of this chapter. 10.062 Penalties and Enforcement. Violation of a provision of this Chapter 10 constitutes an infraction. Every day in .which a violation is caused or permitted to exist constitutes a separate infraction. ' Any building or structure erected or constructed in violation ____ of the provisions -of this chapter, whether or not done pursuant to a permit, is declared a public nuisance and may be abated es provided in -- - - Sections 5.520 - 5.535 of the Medford Code. The city may enJoin any violation of the provisions of _thts _ chapter through a civil suit. 10.070 Fees.- A schedule of fee amounts shall be established, and periodically amended, by ordinance of the City Council. Amended fee amounts shall control without amendment to this chapter. _ (1) Filing Fees The following filing fees shall be paid in cash or by check at the time of filing the application: Fee Schedule Annexation .................................. $550.00 Vacation ....................:............... $200.00 Zone Change ................................. 8325.00 - Land Division (1 to 3 lots) ...... 8120.00 .. . ........... plus $7.00 per lot for 4 to 30 lots _ plus $4.00 per lot for 31 or more lots. Site Plan and Architectural Review .......... 8 25.00 Exception ......:.:.........:..:.......'...::. 8150.00 ... ___ Conditional Use Permit .. :' . ...........:...... 8200.00 Planned Unit Development .................... 8350.00 10:39 ~ 3 10.070 Medford Code 10.092 \. (2) Service Fees, Enoineering , . As an additional fee, and condition precedent to certification of a final map, tKe developer shalt -pay the City -for the time actual, y end necessarily spent by city employees to perform;.~g those services " that are reasonable and necessary`t~~the approval of a final map, ell to be computed to the nearest one-half , hour. The number of hours, and fees based thereon, shall be determined by the city engineer 'at the time of submittal of the final map and shall not exceed the hours disclosed on the itemized statement. ,The developer shall be given an opportunity to examine the itemized statements and to contest .the necessity. or• reasonableness of the hours claimed. (3) Appeal Fee. There shall be a'$25.00 fee for any appeal of _ this chapter. _ _ 10.080 Legislative Amendments. _, An .amendment to either the Comprehensive Plan or this chapter, or any other action designated by the City Council as legislative based on findings that the issue involves such a substantial area and number C of property owners or__ such ._ broad pubile policy changes that administrative processing would be inappropriate, shall be processed as a Class "A" action as per Article I,I, Section 10.180, Class "A" Actions. ' 10.085 Findings. ___ _ Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or this chapter shall be accompanied by findings which shall include: (1) Identification of ail applicable Statewide Goals, if .any.. ' (2) Identification and explanation of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan considered relevant to the decision. (3) Statement.of the facts relied upon to render)ng the decision, if any. (4) Explanation' of the Justification for the decision based on the criteria, standards, and facts. 10.092 Inconsistent Ordinances Repealed. Ordinance number 9526, Code Sections 10-005 through 10-415 and 10-814 through 10-954 and Ordinance .number 4041. are hereby repealed as of the effective date of this chapter. *Sectlons 9-600 through 9-667 were repealed by Ord. No. 5820 on Mar. 19, 1987.7 ,0:40 ~ 1 FUNCTION FEE TIME OF PAYMENT COMPREHENSIVE-PLAN - Amendment of Plan Text ................ $250 Rt.time of application. -.Amendment of Plan Map ........:.:.....: $250 At time of application. ZONING - Amendment of Zoning Ordinance.........' $250 At time of application. - Amendment of Zoning Map .....:......... $250 At time of application. SUBDIVISION - Tentative Sketch .Plan Review/Approval '$ 50 _ Prior to conference with City Planner. - Tentative Subdivision Map ............. $300 plus S15/lo At time of filing map over 10 lots. and application. - Final Map...... ...... ......... S150 At time of filing. LAND PARTITIONREVIEW:& APPROVAL......... $150 At tmeof application. MINOR LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ................ $ 75 Rt time. of application. SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW - Const. of new commercial, industrial, $ 75 - Single-fam. At time of application. residential or other main buildings, & Duplexes. parks, aggregate removal, and $125 - Multi-fam. building relocations: $150 - Com./Ind. - Surfacing/resurfacing of pkg. lots; $ 50 At time of application. zoad approach permits on arterials; minor addition to existing bldg.; appurtenant bldg.; bins, containers, land fill; and other uses not subject to above. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT .................. $200 At time of application. VARIANCE ................:................ $150 At time of application. HOME OCCUPATION REVIEW & APPROVAL........ $25 With neighbors' consent 1 of 2 3s FUNCTION FEE TIME OF PAYMENT _..MOBILE.HOME PARK APPROVAL •5250 plus $5 per ~ , At time of application. mobile home spaceF - Tentative Review s Approval....... " " ' over 50. - Final Approval by Planning Commission.. . $100 ; ;At fili ng of final map. ', ~ ~ • ROAD APPROACH PERMIT..................... $ 10 ~ ~ At time of application. (Collector or Local Street) HISTORIC PRESERVATION Exterior Remodel of Hist. Structure... $100 At time of application. - Demolition of a Hist. Structure....... $100 At time of application. - Designation of New Historic Site...... $100 At time of application. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. - Preliminary Dev. Plan and Data Review. $300 At time of application. - Final Development Plan Approval....... $ 50 At filing of final plan REQUESTS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME .......~.... ~~ $ 50 At time of request. REVISIONS TO PRIOR APPROVALS ............. $125 if public At time of .request. hrng. required. $ 50 if no hearing. "` SIGN COMPLIANCE REVIEW is ~;: -Staff Review and Approval............. S ,?0 At time of application. - Planning Commission Review Necessary.. S 50 At time of application. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WZTH STAFF.... ENCOURAGED Arrange for Appointment (NO FEE) .. ` APPEAL OF LAND USE DECISION .............. 5100 At time of filing, and .t : (To Planning Commission or City Council) within 1 0 days of the decision .appealed. `; , .. p4:' {r; iRi . ~ _ ; ';P.v~ 2 of 2. Adopted by City~,CounciT by Ord .,NO .469 x ~~ `t ir...'.. •, .• 6 Date: June~18~::.1986 " s:.;cr ,,,; 3 .Resolution No. 13-18< CITY OF EAGLE POINT FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND APPLICATIONS REQUIRING AC TION OR APPROVAL UNDER THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE 1. - ANNEXATION $i50 For less than five (5) acres $250 Far five (5) to nineteen (19) acres $500 For twenty (20) acres or more. 2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CHANGE $250 3. ZONE CHANGE $250 4. ZONE VARIANCE $150 $ 80 For proposals not involving more than - 5: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT $25,000 in project value, nor a signi- ficant or major change in the use type or character of the area. S 50 -For additional-variances within the same application and project. 5150 S 80 $200 For proposa-ls not involving more than $25,000 in project value, nor a signi- ficant or major change in the use type or character of the area. Plus S20/lot for the first 10 lots, 510/lot thereafter. ---6.- ° -SUBDIVISION Tentative Plar Final Plat ~~.:_. MAJOR LAND PARTITION 8. MINOR LAND PARTITION 9. SITE PLAN REVIEW Initial Review Revisions 5100 Same as Subdivisions $150 5 50 Plus 1 cent per square foot of area reviewed, maximum 5500. 5 25 If only brief review is required (as determined by City Administrator); otherwise, 550. 10. APPEALS $ 50 NOTE: Fees for Planned Unit Developments shall be based on the particular land use actions necessary, e.g. annexation, zone change, subdivision, site plan review, conditional use permit, etc. 37 CITY OF PHOENIX -' FEE SCHEDULE FUNCTION FEE 5 TIME OF PAYMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - ~ y, F, . ( - ' Amendment of Plan text .............. $200 r At time of application. Amendment of Plan Map ............... $200 At time of application. ZONING Amendment of Zoning Ordinance....... $200 At time of application. Amendment of Zoning Map ....:........ $200 At time of application. SUBDIVISION: Tentative Sketch Plan Approval...... $ 25 At time of conference with City staff. Tentative Subdivision Map Approval.. $300 At time of filing of +$15 per lot map. and request for over 10 lots approval. Final Subdivision Map Approval...... -$150 At time of filing. LAND PARTITIONS & LOT LINE ADJUSTMENTS..... $100 At time of application. ...SITE PLAN REVIEW - A. Proposed construction of primary buildings for residential, com- -y mercial, industrial., or.public use; or the alteration of property by filling, excavating, or grading ...................... $100 At time of application. B: Landscaping, drainage, parking, . or other plans other than listed above. Also road approach per- mits; minor building additions; appurtenant structures; major signs, fences, walls; and others, as determined by the Planning - Commission to be necessary....... $ 50 At-time of application. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ................-..... $100 -. At time of application. VARIANCE ...........:................'...,...: $100 At time of application. (Except as may be required through site review process) (FEE SCHEDULE - P. 1 of 2) 38 (FEE SCHEDULE - P. 2) FUNCTION FEE TIME OF PAYMENT. MOBILE HOME PARRS Plan Approval..... Tentative Sketch $ 25 At tune of conference . with City staff. Final Design Review and Approval... 5200 At time of application. MOBILE HOME SUBDIVISION Same as required for conventional s ubdivisions. ROAD APPROACH PERMIT Collector or local streets only.... $ 10 At time of filing for other dev. permits. HISTORICAL REVIEW Requests for~Architectural Modificat ions At time of request for Relocation, or Demolition.......... $ 50 building or demo. permit. Designation of a structure, or Removal .of Historic Designation.... $ 50 At time of filing. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.(PUD) For review and approval by Planning Commission, in accordance with Section 10 of Zoning Ordinance..... 5200 At time of application. APPEALS Appeals of City decisions to either $ 50 At time of appeal. Planning Commission or City Council 7 0 Approv y arming Coa®zssion: Sept. 24, 1984 3~ v~ w N W:W H ow ~ ~ W ~ maw z ~'O U7 O U ~~~~ _. : .. W w W w U] O D ~ p~ ~ ~ p1 .-i t(1 N N n 0~ ~ ~. ~ n T ri rl ~ O ~••~ C m (+f C 7. N .-1 ~ ri '•I N r-1 '•I N N W ~ a. tn• vs ~n .n ar as vs w• yr O .r1 W O O t0 •-i 01 O n N nf• O ~ O f~f H ° ° m m O1 C N V' t•1 .~ o C. M o 0 0 m N ••I '•I r•1 N rl '•I '•I M Pl m - W - o ~ N us v} vl• v~ yr ~, yr v} yr vi• v} + H ~ °' `° m ~ ~ ° u' ~ n 0.1 O aoi ° ~ ~ i m 1!1 ~ f? N f? 4} V} 41 t? 4} 4? t? V} w W O O n M m N n m tl1 if1 .-1 O O O O rl ~ O Ol m .-1 O ~l1 m :0 u7 O ~!1 U N r-1 rl N f•I '•I r•1 ri ,~ j ~ N t(1 V? t? L} 4} N t/} t? t? t? f? f/} W N b O O O y ( 7 W U e > ~ ~ 7 z ~ Gi • b .Ci A E Z ~ X (~7 FC . W ~ ~ r r~C ~ Z U W a a H H 7E W ~ ~ z W ~ ~ a ~z u i ~ N o M O O r y z W ~7 W a p , O ri D E U m A H F ~ ~- W . a .. . v m a y m 1 N kl L O ~ C N N U v o ro N A • N Rs 3^~ u m b~ N A m w ti - ro ~ . ro • N U ul . U w~ o ° • ~ O i ~ a u ~ti C ~ y b ro U ~ i O ro W •-i N ~ W M U b ro U O H • C U O 3 CU • u O R C •'I y m ~ ~ W 7 y W ry d Fl u ,•i. > 3 EI z - ei v u v m H ~ G N L •A >~ N LI 11 Gl .C N F~ ro b v v ov vro wo•.+ +: ~ ~ q :o ° v >, s+ v w N a> m a s+ e ro m w e v ro a ro i .i ro ~ w a _ ~ o v `~ > •.~ m ove v .~ o .+ ros+ •.+.a F ,~ c~ .~~ +~•.~ v ro.c o v v v v y a ro v o U o v roro acrn v ~, ++u sew >.u ro3 0 w ++ U v s~ e v v c ++ +~ a v o ro ro +~ o u ro w ~ v vo vero •.~ ^s+ o v Fd u e s+.e.co v +~ a ro++ v vv •+ a ~ a •.~ e•.+ w a~ ro U A . . N + > vw oy ^ aN ~+ Na+ a~w .~ro a a A S+ v ,G v A •~ A v-..e v u a a ro o ro m e m a vb +~> ~n rn ++ vo v .co a a ~ ~ ro s+ro v v ro s~o, s w - Nev v ~ oa v o a•~+ ro v ro ro •ro ro ro v , ro v ro'~ u s ro c ro ro w ~ vw ro 3 ••~ w ro r v c? a ro .c NOro v a roo o+w o e.•+ roro >,o q ~ O 11 >~ J". O U b~ N ~ ~ T s rtt O J.~ rota •~ J.~ 3 U +~ J.~ ro ro++ri> c W mA 11 r1 roa iv i a v m c + •~+ s ~ N ~ om~ ~ o wo ro +~ .+a vrn > o c ~ v ~ . m o +•. ~ v N o ~ ~n W . .~ ++ a >. y ro O W >+ I.1 '~ 41-•••1 F C. W 01 ••1 H ri H O1 ~ • is O •••1 U C7 {~ N N V1 W .C 1~ N - O S~ b 1d ro 11 O O d A •Ti O U ri •'1. N rl 3 W 3 0 ~V SI ro N N '•1 O W W A +~ .I-~ G ro is G w ~ ,K .-a v a w 3 a >•a ~ •~ ~ c H o o ~ ro N v va a•.~> v N oec~ ~c o ou>N ro • a ro m++ a v ro•.~ a s+ v m > v w F o H v •.+ v .+ . ~•~ ~ v '~ m ° ~ o v m 'ib+ a y•"i O1~rov m> . a~ ~ ~' ~ J p - " `~ x ~' ~ ~y " ~ ' ` p' a ia i vo o ro.:e Nro c~s+w S am m ~ CG - b+ ro av b++ rn moo •~+ro •.+roro v romH W G ro W 'O N 7y >i O S1 b U .-i +7 U N N 3 - ~ s • + v ro o o v u w a ti a 3 o ~ v >,m a o v•.+N 0 rn o r rovNV ± . - aa•.++~ -F eo ~ a v A .+ . v a ro A v ro .+ ~> '+ m y •.+ +~ N N O s+ o v o ~ ~'° " > s" ro o ~v"vro roo+ "roa b> Nm' "a~ a v v y v w + v o , + ~o s, w v.cro.~ 1 ~ G • 1 vu L ' ro . •-iao l • i A m•a U a>,m H 1~ •-/ P •-1 •-~ W q ,G U YI Ol J ' b I l • : ' N H A N N H i+ ro U1 b O1 G b d F N y~ +~ ro a N G G O ro .C •.I N m .C N N ++ ro N :G • W •• > N b ro ,G O 3 F itl ro O N Cw >+ ro C C O Ia O y V E E S+ H , , A tl ~ b C O k N ~~ ~ O v W W~ ,yy , 8 N U N ( ~ S i C O ro ° C O N F N O W C N O A °C ~7 f•1 m .C . .C ~ L i E i N ttl t • O t q N A C W 8 ~•'~ w . U i~ I~ N O D U W .4 T . ( ~ I O ~ a ~ H ao w ~ W Z °o 0 0 1•i y ~ ~ ro~ ~ ~ ~ z o z R `~ a ~ O N + + + + + a~ t N + +~ t W 1C O O O O O O O O. O O N W N O O N O O W N N it1 O O N O O N O O O N \ rl N' N N .-I U \ U ~ U \ u C u u a ~ ~ ~ try ~ y ~ r? ~ ul• ;,ra yr v} ..1~ yr vT ~ ~? ~A• vl• ~ r O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O N O~ O O A . O O N O O 111 N U ~ .. O N U M N a v} vr• v} va v!• va v>• v+ vr, vi• v>• v} yr yr yr vi• w• m v} vt O O N ill O rl O O R) O O if1 O O O N li O O O O o in o N .n \ o o r o N o .n o ro ~ ~ o £ v} vH m ar ar vi yr yr vi• ~ v} us va m r? ~ v~ ar vt ~ E H E + a.i O u yl ~ ~ O O N i n O . -I O O ill O O O O O N L~ O O -0 w m o o N o \ ui o r o o N o 0 o ro ' in o .r, - N N U .-•I O N N i'1 ~-I r-I t~1 U J 'i ~-1 ro $ VJ• N ~/? V} th ~ U? N V} 41 VT N tll• ~ 1/1. 4T v}. t/}. y} ~ y. .N O '•~ O. O O U1 O ~ O O O O O O O O O O ill O O Z IA N N ~ ~ r O ~ O N r•I '-I rl H N W V? V} 4? 4} V} ~ V} VT t? N Vf V} t? Vh t? 4? t? N- . N V} V} . H q @ t •N O t t + +~ ~•+ + t IL •'I O O N O O e-1 O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O .-I ifl O O i71 \ u1 u1 O O O O O r1 - O O N r-I N U r-I O .i N .~1 If1 r-1 N U \ t+1 M ~ ~ ' N {L va v} v, `n va ut . v,• yr va v>• ~, vr• v} va v> vs va v~ - vi• va d c o o in in in o~ o o in o vi in o 0 0 o vi o 0 0 ro ui in N t0 r M ~ o r o r N in o in in r a in o • r-1 rl N .i r•I rl rl rl ~ f? V} N N N 1/1• t? t? +? f? ~? t? t/} 4T UT V} (/) (/} 4T ~? + 0 ~ i ~ C w o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o u i o 0 0 0 o o t o ~ ro N N an U r o s ~ + . i D. ~ ` w a v W 4J 4} d!- v} 4} N .? t? V} vt f/} 4} W V, N H} t? t? V} t? ~ ~, . j . in in + in in o ri vi o in o . in o o o o o in ~n o 0 ,~ y ~ r r GO ' O N r r N r N ill r r N O p ~ N ~ ~ ~ U ~ W vr• yr +n vr• yr vi• v} .~ va vi• yr +n• v} to yr vs +a w• ~ v, Ul bi O O V1 O O i'1 O O O O Ill O O O O N til N O O C G u1 1f1 N 'i O ill Yl Il) O O N O ill O ill O r r tl1 O O ro ei. .i .d rl N rl rf N '•I N rl. rl rl, rl N U N N N A U N N VT VJ V} f? ~/} 4} V? 4J N V} t? t/} !? 4} tA• N th N C +~ ro ~ o a a ~ a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in 0 o n o 0 0 0 . ~. O ill rl 1l1 if1 ul O N O Ill V1 O ul O M 'i r-i N f'1 N i(1 rl N rl N U N N ~ W U ~ N N N (/} V1 f/} t? N t4 V> 4} f? V} N VT 4? V} 4Y f? N ~ W ~ b ~ V W E Z VI }~ ,?, n7 k] U Z H N O a Q w O W f W 8 W ~ O U O ~ ~ ZZ C~ ~ O S ~ 7 W a H o U W G + m W O u~ W W H U H .7 ~ [ il .7 W W i t. Q y ~ C a W p ~ ~ U p p £ ~ C N a y U E N 3 3 r n E ~ ~7 P W 2 ~ W ~" a i . U f0 ~ y 'i . v s~ N W .C N ' ~ ~ ro ro m U v x~~ U N O s H N Spa C7 N W 0 m Ol 11 7 w wl a 0 fA m C 7 a U1 ro E U O U a ~~ wW ~ w W ~ W :b ~ 0 a- A a ~' o w w E H O ~ O O O O o '" U ~ 2 it ~O O 0 7. O o ~; + d ' X O O O u1 O O O O O O ill ul O O N~ " N O N Ill ill N N O C rl N N ri ~"1 U C ~ V} VT t? VT V} VT VT t? V? t? V? VT 4T N 1? ~• + + t ~• + 0 O O O N O O O O O O O O N O O O O (D N O O 111 111 O 1A - Ill N if1 O W rl N r-1 r-1 t+f N - f~l r-1 N N V} 4} N (? N t/} Vl . f? N V} (? f? t? 41 V} ~ O O O O O ~/1 O 111 O ill vl O N O O N '•I N N tll M N r O ~I ~ O z ~ ~ ~ U ~ E v} va ar va yr v} va v} v>• vr yr vr• yr ~a va , . E +l ~ ~ O + f O O Vl ill ~- I O O u 1 O O O O i O N a .~ r N N vl ~ rl ~ o 0 0 ~ o v , £ N In v} v} v> va vt v} va v} vt v!• v~ .n• vr• vr•. '-•~ O O O O O O O O O O O H O O S+ O ~ O O ~ ...~ , > H W U7 r? VT N f? V} V} y. l? V? N V} N t? VT V} H H 1l ° E + O t + t + t t + ~ •.i O O ul Ul r-I O O u1 O O O O Ul O Sd b •--I N N \ O ~ M N O O N O b v - C O O O v1 ll1 O o u1 O o O o O o In N O <1' to N ~ N O l'1 111 tl1 Ill O r Vl (A •.1. r-1 N ri •-I rl Vl N N t? V} N as V} N N N 1/) V} N. N ~ Ul ~ O O O N O O O N O ~ 0 O N O O ~ b , 0 , v ~ > .~ a a ~. ~, ~, ~,. .l. .l>• .l, .,, ~ ~e .~ .~ .l, ~, ~. .u + v •.+ o 0 0 In ul o o ul o 0 0 0 0 o vl a v o co o N m vl ul r ul o 0 o r ul U ~ ~ '•1 H r1 ~ M .•-I .-1. W vi• vs .n• V} v+~ va• v} +n tn• vs v} v} vi +n +n e v l 0 0 0 In o 0 o ul o 0 o ul In o ul G C O CO to N '•I O u1 N O O O N N O m O b rl rl '-I '•I N rl r-1 M M M r•1 N r1 N .C U (/} V} t/} f/} t? N N (R V} V} f/} t? f? fA• N R 11 N .i W ~.. 0 ,. O ~ O 0 N N O N O O ul N N O O ~. rl '-I rl N r-1 ~!7 N ch .i e-1 r•1 E N w a v w b ~ 7 .' W E > g W a z °z ~ ~ w °a a z ~ ~ r x o a a ° ' H y a ~ • g z o o ~ ~ ~ ~ ' w F ~ o a ~ ,r7 ~, o ~ a° ~°7 z w a~ 9 A. W Z ° ~ U U u1 H P4 U S vl N I f N ~O ~O ~ ~ Y ~ 'y ' 1, Sr ~+ P7~w £ ~.c aNi v SUi Lei +~+ v ,c v N U '•I ~ N U ~-1 M Y U N O E fCi N Ul ~ O 7 C7 rn W O m Ol s, w UI O N O m r!~ N a 7 N .-l ro H O U a ~-(Z P N C ~ H ~ w OGw+ yoo ~w ~° ro] ~ a ~ Z U] ~ fUj O a ° 0 0 } '~' } r t k O O O O O O O O O O O O O tll O t0 O O O y N ul ~ v1 ul O i0 n O M u•I O O ~ lp I!1 : .i •-I V7 M N M 1/1 M N .-I . ,y ut m :v} v> va ~, ~, 'v, yr ~ v, ~ v, vs ~ ~. ~ ~, ~. O N O O ill O O O O O O O O ul Vl O 1~ O O O o N in .n n ~n ~ o 0 0 0 o r r - ~ o .n o W O M l0 "rV M C P M Q - N .-1 . N l0 N N va of w "v} ' V} m v} ur va ~ In v} v} v} vT yr ~r » v} Sd O o O O O O o if7 O o c0 0 ;~; o v1 o + O o O O 0 C N o c o ,-~ ~n r m .n ~o o M r in e' o M ,Z e i ~ 'i rl M ~-1 N N .-1 ~ ~ v} yr vt vs of va yr v~ va w• v} v> <n v} v} .n va v} ~ E H a + + + aC ~ N O O ul O ul O O O O O O O O O ri O O O W. O C' N O n O 01 tO O T O n O in rl O u1 ,M ro ~ '•I '•1 N M ri M '-I N N r-I N .--I ~' N N t/T V} VT 4} 4} V? ~/} ~ V1• V} V} 4} Vl 4} V} 4? V} ~' ~-' o 0 0 0 0 0 o as o 0 0 0 0 0 0 u i 0 0 0 a ro C M o o c U n ~ ~ Q •e i .-I N N ri ~: (n Ga f/T V} (/} V} f? V! V1• 4T 1? V? (/} V} (/) e/t N VT 4} (? VT H O E + + + + + + + + + t + ~ O p7 •.i ep O O O O O O O O O O O N O O rd O O .i ' O r-1. r-1 N 00 ~[1 O ~O O O O O U O l~ u1 O N O ul \ V1 U7 M r1 .-1 rl rl M C d' M N N rl rl M Ifl N O SJ ~ W va ur ~r v, vt v} vs vi. vi• va v} v, yr va v} a, v} v. i N + + c co 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in o 0 0 0 ~ o in in ro ~ ~ M o in m o 0 0 ~n N ~n r o o c o N n ..{ ~ ~ N N. .-7 N' N '•I rl rl rl N r•1 O 1 O ( O/ C N CO U) O O O O i ~f1 0 O O O O t O O O N N M ~ 1~ ~ n. U IA ~. N N N •.1 .-1 ~ UI W a N t/T 41 4} t? t? f? V} (? 41 V} N t/} t? t? !/} (/} N t? ~ 0 ~ .d y . ~ <r o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o in in C N E rl O N l0 O M ul O O h N If1 N O 1!1 O N r O 5 ~•~I M N ~-1 N r-I d' ri t0 N rl ~-I r•1 M N U . r a v, vi• vt vt va v} yr +n v} yr .n~ v} yr m• yr v} v, v} y 0 0 'F v rn ~ ~ 0 0 0. ~ o 0 0 0 0 ' ~n o v i 0 0 0 C C ~ N d' O t(1 C' O M O X11 O t0 l~ u1 d' O O O O ro M M N 1f1 r-1 V' M v M N ri. M N d ep N .-1 rl N ,C C.I N +? f/1• (/} t? V} t? f/Y f/} +? t/} N t? N t? N fM 4T V} C ~U ~ d t ~- p, cr o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in ~n 0 0 0 0 0 ~ rl O , O. O n O N N O O T N O IA O O O W C M t!1 to M 10.. d' l0 N M N ~ d' M .••I V' tf1 r-1 N . E t? t? (? f/l N V} - N Uf f/1• N G} tM N N 4} t? N f/} Vl U N a a b W o a ~ i o , a . H ~ ° a ~ ° a w ~ ~ o U o a a ~ o a o F a a Q a a w ~ H ~ ° a N ~ s o ~ P° ° a a ° ~ z ° ~ E v ° ~ o ° a a a v ~ u i m a ~ ~ F ~ ~ a a c~ w s ~~ U N •N 01 ~ .•1 H N O W W VI •C Ul H ~' N L ~ U a~ ~ro U +~ E ~ N ~ ~ N W O C a m 0 GI WI a O O, O iJ, N 7 a v ., A E a ~~ ---STAFF REPORT--- '' To: Planning Commission Date: July 18, 1988 From: Randy Kugler, Administrative Assistant & Actinq Planning Director Re: Review and approval of amendments to to the Jackson Creek Neighborhood Development Plan The Jackson Creek Neighborhood Development Plan was adopted in 1985 as apart of the City's efforts to achieve compliance with the urbanization policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan. In order to ensure that this plan remains a viable planking tool, it needs to be periodically revised to reflect changing conditions. The major revisions to date consist of the continuing development of the Stonecreek Subdivision, the recent master plan for Jackson Creek Estates, and the Snowy Butte Lane Master Plan. The following exhibits are included: Exhibit A - Certificate of Posting of agenda for Planning Commission meeting of August 2, 1988; Exhibit B - Existing Jackson Creek Neighborhood Development Plan; Exhibit C - Resolution amending Jackson Creek Neighborhood Development Plan. Exhibit b - Proposed Jackson Creek Neighborhood Development Plan (separate document). RK/mah Attachments t PCWORK AMDJCNDP ~~y ~ +hiti Y':'.t~2 U •s~ rV !e '• e O T G L1 ~~ THE HEART OF THE RCGUE RIVER VALLEY CERTIFICATE OF POSTING I, __` ~ ~~,fi. THE FOILOidINGQDATE, `~ ~ fOR THE J,~~; FOR !~^~ ~ ~ /" NEAR 1. ~~ ~cli„(~~ ~~ ,~ P.O. BOX 3576 CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502- PHONE664-3321 7 ,.CERTIFY THAT ON I POSTED IA-N~AGENDA ~ ~/, H~' OP, J SIGNATURE ~ l ~ _ DATE ~~ZS `vu yS .r s ~' _ r _ `. - I i~ l ~l ~'~`~'i'l \ \ ! i i ~ i ~ '%y4 a rYV1"~ ~ "~F~if ;~~~rt (. ~ ;_,, °W _ - oppa m .a a, ~,,Yti<< ~W(' z ° .~ ~-/6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION AMENDING A CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE AREA BOUNDED BY WEST PINE .STREET, GLENN WAY, BEALL LANE, AND HANLEY ROAD REFERRED TO AS THE JACKSON CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEREAS, the Central Point Planning Commission has. adopted the Jackson Creek Neighborhood Development Plan in order to conform with the urbanization policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the conceptual plan for residential development within the area bounded by West Pine Street, Glenn Way, Beall Lane, and Hanley Road has been revised since 1985; and WHEREAS, the Central Point Planning Commission desires to update the Jackson Creek Neighbonc~od Developmet Plan to reflect existing. and. proposed residential development conditions; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Central Point, Oregon, amends the conceptual development plan bounded by West Pine Street, Glenn Way, Bea11 Lane, and Hanley Road referred to as Jackson Creek Neighborhood Development Plan for the purpose of maintaining conformance with the urbanization policy of the City's Comprehensive Plan as development requests within the speci- fied area occur. ' Plassed by the Planning Commission this day of , 19_, and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of ' 19 I Planning Commission Chairman ATTEST: Planning Commission Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. -7 /