HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - February 3, 1987,. ,:
Next Resolution No. 122
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
155 South Second Street
February 3, 1987 - 7:00 p.m.
AGENDA
I. Meeting called to order
II. Roll call
III. Approval of minutes
IV. Correspondence and Public Appearances
V. Business
A. Presentation by Ron Hough, Senior Planner with Rogue Valley
Council of Governments, on proposed amendments to minimum lot
size requirements.
VI. Miscellaneous
VII. Adjournment
<:._.
M1
Staff Report ,
CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION
February 3, 1987
,r
INTRODUCTION
The City's adopted policies and objectives for the long-range growth and
development of the community are expressed in the Comprehensive Plan and
are implemented by a variety of land use regulations - primarily the
Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances.
Plans, particularly long-range plans, are subject to change, are influenced
by a number of different factors; and should be reviewed and amended
periodically. Statewide Planning Goal.#2 (Land Use Planning) suggests that
the Comprehensive Plan and implementing land use regulations be reviewed at
least every two years and that appropriate amehdments be made to keep them
up-to-date. The Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC) has
deoeloped a formal system of review known as "'Periodic Review" and has
established specific guidelines for cities to follow. However, Central
Point's Plan is still relatively new and probably won't be scheduled for
PeriodicReview until at least 1989.
In accordance with LCDC's suggestion to review the plan and regulations,
as necessary, the Planning Commission is being asked to take a look at
the City's zoning and, in particular, the low-density residential zoning,
as contained in Chapter 17.20 of the Zoning Ordinance. More specifically,
this exercise will look at all R-1 zoning and will consider the possibility
of increasing the minimum lot sizes or other requirements, as applied to
specific areas of the community, in order to enhance residential neighbor-
hoods or as a means of attracting higher value and/or higher quality
single-family home development in the most appropriate locations.
In addition to the low-density zoning issue, the Planning Commission might
also take this opportunity to review other areas of the Zoning Ordinance
or zoning map and work toward presenting a "package" of amendments to the
City Council upon conclusion of thisstudy.
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT PROCEDURES
Section 1.24:020 of the Municipal Code outlines the amendment responsibili-
ties of the Planning Commission and City Council. The City Council is
required to hold a public hearing and make the final decision on amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Ordinance texts or maps. The Planning
Commission_is not specifically required to hold a public hearing, but is
.directed. to review and make recommendations, by resolution, to the Council.
- 1 -
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC:
The Planning Commission's preliminary discussions should help determine
the type of notice that will be required. The notice requirements will
depend on whether the proposed amendments are considered to be "Major"
or "Minor" amendments, as described below:
MAJOR AMENDMENT -- Includes changes in the Plan or land use
regulations that will have widespread and significant
impact beyond the immediate area, such as quantitative
changes producing large volumes of traffic; a qualitative
change in the character of the land use itself, such as
conversion of residential to industrial use; or a spatial
change that affects large areas or many different .ownerships.
MINOR AMENDMENT -- Includes changes that will probably not have
a significant impact beyond the immediate area of the change.
The preliminary estimate of the scope of this review appears more like
a Major amendment than a Minor. It is possible that entire neighborhoods
or parts of large zoning districts could be targeted for adjustments in
their zoning or adjustments to the requirements of their zoning districts_
There may also be other non-residential changes to the Zoning Map which
could result in widespread impacts and, therefore, would be considered
Major amendments.
if the Planning Commission's review and discussion concludes that only a
very few adjustments in zoning need to be made, then public notice would
be given in accordance with the notice requirements for Minor amendments
in Section 1.24.060 of the Municipal Code. Such notice requires a public
notice in a newspaper for two successive weeks prior to the Council's
hearing-and, if the amendment is to the Comprehensive Plan, then written
notice must also be mailed to the owner of record of all tax lots within
the subject area and within a 200 ft. radius of the area.
If the Commission's review concludes that a number of changes need to~'be
made, or that they cover a wide area and large humber of properties, then
the process would be considered a Major amendment and the City would
publish a newspaper notice at least 30 days prior to the Council's public
hearing and once again in the week prior to the hearing. Major amendments
do not require individual notice to property owners.
If there will be a number of amendments to the Zoning Map itself, it may
be more appropriate to simply adopt a new Zoning Map that includes all of
those changes, rather than patching up the old map. This would require
statements (findings of fact) to justify those changes and the adoption
of an ordinance, but would greatly simplify the process.
NOTICE TO LCDC:
The Dept. of-Land Conservation and Development (DECD) requires that they
receive notice of any amendments to acknowledged plans or land use regula-
tions at least 45 days prior to the scheduled final public hearing. The
proposal is then distributed to other agencies that may be interested and
they are expected to respond within that 45 day period.
_ 2
Following the notification period,'the City may go ahead and hold the
final hearing and adopt the amendments. Then, the City is required to
notify DLCD of that adoption within five working days. Any appeals of
the City's amendments must be made directly to the Land Use Board of
'Appeals (CUBA).' If an action is not appealed within 21 days, it is
considered to be acknowledged.
LOW-DENSITY ZONING ISSUE
The Central Point Zoning Ordinance includes two low-density zoning
districts. The R-L district was designed to be a sort of transitional
' district to be applied to areas along the periphery of the Urban Growth
Boundary and other areas where a "buffer" is needed between urban and
rural land uses. This district was actually used in only one location,
east of Expo Park and Gebhard Road for the purpose of minimizing the
potentially adverse effects of Expo Park's noise; dust, odors, etc.
This area is currently within the UGB, but is outside the City and the
R-L zoning will not take effect until the area is annexed.
The other low-density district is the R-1 (Residential Single-family)
zoning district.' This is the most widespread zoning district, covering
more than 800 acres of the total Urbanizable Area (inside the UGB) and
consisting of about 51 percent of the total area.
By the year 2000, according to the Comprehensive Plan, the areas designated
as "low-density" (including the R-1 and R-L_zones) could accommodate as
.many as 3,981 dwellings and house more than 10,000 residents. Thus, the
low-density zones are very important to the City's future development and
will also affect the community's image and economic well-being. Therefore,
this study will focus on the R-1 district in an effort to maximize its
potential to the community as a whole and to make R-1 areas attractive to
developers who will construct the sizes and types of homes that are in
the City's best .interest. The initial challenge is to define what that
"best interest" is in more specific terms.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE:
The R-1 zoning district of Central Point allows single-family home lots
as small as 6,000 square feet in area. Atypical 60' x100' lot would
have a building area of only 3,250 feet after yard setbacks are calculated,
or only 2,600 square feet for a two-story house. The R-1 zone also has a
maximum lot coverage limit of 40 percent, which would mean a single-story
home on a 6,000 square foot lot could be no larger than 2,400 sq.ft., which
includes garages and other accessory structures.
The limitations of the R-1 district do not prevent a developer from
creating larger lots for larger homes. However, it appears that recent
history is showing that developers are most interested in creating the
greatest number of lots possible from a piece of property and building
homes in the low-to-medium price range. There are many potential home
buyers in this price range -- possibly more than in any other range.
3
The Central Point Comprehensive Plan's Housing section includes policies
that promote a variety of housing, including to "provide for a range of
housing types, styles, and costs.,.". Although there is an obvious need
to provide housing at the low end of the economic scale, there. is also a
need to provide for housing in the medium and higher cost ranges. Housing
studies over the past decades have repeatedly concluded that single-family
residential subdivisions rarely "pay their way" in terms of tax revenues.
The lower the value of these homes, the greater the subsidy that will be
required from other types of land uses, such as higher-density residential,
commercial or industrial. Thus, there is an economic need to encourage a
greater proportion of higher value residential development. This might be
done by increasing the minimum lot size requirements.
In an effort. to promote a better balance of housing values in Central Point,
a proposal is being. submitted to the Planning Commission which would call
for the .splitting of the R-1 zoning district into three density categories.
This concept: would retain the R-1 single-family idea,. which is consistent
with. the Comprehensive Plan, but would further divide ;the district into
R-1-6, R-1-8, and R-1-10 sub-districts, which would be delineated on the
Zoning Map with no change to the Comprehensive Plan Map. The primarily
change would be the minimum lot sizes of 6,000, 8,000 and 10,000 square
feet .respectively. There may also be some minor differences in some of
the other .development standards or setbacks,. but all other features of
the R-1 district would remain intact. An example of how thismight be
incorporated into the existing Zoning Ordinance is shown on the following
page.
APPLICATION OF R-1 SUB-DISTRICTS:
If the City does approve of a splitting of the R-1 district into two or
three sub-districts, the next step will be to apply those sub-districts
to areas already zoned R-1. The following are suggested criteria which
might be used:
R-1-6 • Older existing neighborhoods which are
characterized by small lots already.
• Older neighborhoods that are in a transitional phase
and which would benefit from small lots for in-:fill housing_
• Areas near major activity centers or transportation routes
that can support higher densities.
R-1-8 •".Existing neighborhoods that were developed in accordance
with the City's previous R-1-8 zone, or similar density.
• Areas not directly served by major or secondary arterials.
R-1-10 • Suburban areas away from the downtown core and not easily
accessible to major traffic routes.
• Areas in which larger lots would be beneficial in helping
to protect environmentally sensitive areas, such as flood-
. plains, natural creeks, wooded areas, and the Bear Creek
Greenway, and provide for needed setbacks or buffering.
• Areas which have unique views or other features that
- 4 -
would be suitable for higher value housing development.
• Along the I-5 Freeway to provide greater lot depth and
noise attenuation through distance separation.
The following is a suggested method of incorporating this concept into
the Zoning Ordinance's R-1 District. The various lot development
requirements in the table are only suggestions at this point and should
be reviewed.
17.20.050 Area, width and yard requirements.
The specific development and density parameters of the R-1
.zoning district"are governed by the subcategories of R-1-6,
R-1-8, and R-1-TO; as delineated"on the official Zoning Map
of Central Point.` Tlie'area; width and yard requirements of
` these subcategories shall be in accordance with the following
table:
Development Requirements R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-10
Min.. Lot Area (interior)..... ~~6,000 8,000 10,000
" (corner)....:.. 7,000 8,000 10,000
Min. Lot Width (interior).... 60 ft. 60 ft. 60.ft.
" (corner)...... 70 ft. 70 ft. 70 ft.
Min. Lot Depth ............... N/A N/A N/A
Min. Front Yard.............. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Min. Side Yard (interior).... 5 ft.* 5 ft.* 5 ft.*
" (street side). 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Min. Rear Yard ............... 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft.
* Side yard setback shall be increased
by an addi tional five feet for each
additional story or partial story.
5
STUDY AREA SUMMARIES
This report is being prepared for the Planning Commission's first major
discussion about low-density residential zoning and other possible
amendments to the Zoning. Ordinance or Map. Therefore, this discussion
is somewhat general, but does attempt to present some information and
ideas for the purpose of stimulating the discussion.
STUDY AREA "A"
This area includes the semi-rural neighborhood of Dobrot Way and the
more densely developed Scenic Village Subdivision, which was originally
developed in accordance with the City's previous R-1-8 zoning. The I-5
Freeway could be a major adverse impact. However, most properties along
the freeway side are already developed and few opportunities remain to
add extra buffering. or noise attenuation devices.
The Dobrot Way. neighborhood consists of very large lots for an urban
area, generally in the half-acre to one Acre range. The area is .adjacent
to "Exclusive Farm Use.." agricultural lands to .the. west and the street
itself issubstandard. TheDObrot neighborhood. should probablybe
given a lower-density zoning designation. The R-1-10 category would
" be appropriate. The City should also consider applying its R-L zoning
to this area. The R-L zone is intended for peripheral areas such as
this and has a minimum lotsize of 15,000 sq.ft. This zone would have
very little effect,-. if any, on most lotsalong Dobrot Way, .but would
reduce opportunities for further minor partitions in an area that was
not designed for and is not really suited for 6,000 sq.ft. lots, as
allowed under the present zoning.
STUDY AREA "B"
This area is at the intersection of Scenic Avenue and the highway and,
with the exception of Green Glen Subdivision, isoutside the City at
this time. The area is proposed for R-1 zoning upon annexation and the
southern portion of the area is proposed for R-2 (Medium-density) zoning.
This area has excellent access to the freeway, highway, and Scenic Avenue
and is within easy walking distance to both Scenic Jr. High and Crater
High School. It is also within easy walking distance of areas west of
the highway and railroad, which are proposed for future industrial develop-~
ment.
This area appearsto be a good candidate for smaller lots and higher
densities because of its convenient location. The adverse impacts of the
highway, railroad, and future industrial development may reduce the area's
appeal as a location for higher-value homes on large lots. However, a
lower-density zoning application along with a "density transfer" option
may be a good idea to provide for greater separation from the highway and
higher densitiesin the eastern portion of the area. This might also be
done through the Planned Unit Development process.
- 6 -
STUDY AREA "C"
This area lies along the western Urban Growth Boundary (Grant Road)
from Beall Lane on the south to Taylor Road on the north. The area
is presently outside the City but proposed for R-1 zoning upon annexation.
Lots in this area are generally large - five acres or larger - and
most'of the area is currently in rural or agricultural uses. The area
offers a pleasant rural atmosphere with views toward the western hills.
Because it is so distant from the freeway, highway and central areas of
town, it is'a relatively quiet area with very little traffic or other
disturbances. This could be an attractive area for larger-lot higher-
value homes and appears to be suitable for R-1-8 or R-1-10 zoning.
There are some agricultural uses to the west, but there is no reason to
' warrahtapplication of the R-L zoning district in this area. At the
other extreme, the R-1 or R-1-6 zoning may be difficult to adapt to the
variety of lot sizes and configurations and could result in an unattractive
and inefficiAnt'pattern of 'spot development.
STUDY AREA "D"
The majority of this area is already in the City and prime for residential
development. The general area extends from Hanley Road on 'the west to the
Stot~ecreek Subdivision on the east. Stonecreek is developing in accordance
with the City's R-1 district requirements and the latest phase to be approved
- had an average lot size of about 7,600 sq.ft. It is suggested that Stonecreek
"~ ' Subdivision be allowed to remain as currently zoned, including portions that
--° have been designed but not yet subdivided or developed.'
Lands generally west of Snowy Butte Lane and Griffin Creek offer the greatest
single opportunity for a large-scale new subdivision in the Central Point
area. To guide that development, the City adopted the Jackson Creek
Neighborhood Development Plan, which was designed around the R-1 zoning.
As a result, most of the lots shown in this conceptual plan fall into the
6,000 to 5,000 sq.ft. size range.
The amenities of this area are similar to those of Area "C". It is away
from the traffic, noise, and other impacts of the downtown area, freeway,
highway, and railroad. However, it is not inconvenient to Central Point
or Medford and Beall Lane would provide a direct route to the highway.
Other amenities of this area include the rural atmosphere, nearby open
farmlands and views of surrounding hills and mountains. Griffin and Jackson
Creeks offer natural water features that could be enhanced to become major
`focal-points of this neighborhood. A community park on Griffin Creek and
the preservationof both creeks as natural "greenways" were features of
the conceptual plan for the Jackson Creek Neighborhood.
Thesizeand location of this area makes it suitable for a variety of
neighborhood design schemes, from higher-density single-family development
to low-density higher-value, or somewhat exclusive, development. Both
could work well here. However, the nod would probably have to go to the
lower-density option primarily because it is located adjacent to a large
agricultural area, is on the periphery of the community, does not have a
real good circulation system, and does have rural-residential type amenities
'that would appeal to buyers seekinga higher-value home in thistype of
setting.
- 7 -
STUDY AREA "E" (Elk Creek Neighborhood)
.This is a fairly large area, most of which was recently annexed to the
City of Central Point. The area shown on the Area "E" map extends from
Bursell Road eastward to the b'reeway and includes the lands north of
Beall Lane to Hopkins Road, generally.
This area abuts the City of Medford on the south and is in an area that
is well suited to development in the near future. .Access is provided
to this area from the Highway by Beall Lane and from the Freeway by
Freeman. ROad. The impact of this area's development on Freeman Road
was the subject of a study last year related to the design of the
Freeman Road/Pine Street intersection. A map showing that impact is
on the following page. Area "G" on that map is similar to this study
.area and showed a planned development of 881 dwelling units. That number
was derived from a draft "Elk Creek Neighborhood Development Plan" that
was designed for this area and based on the R-1 and R-2 zoning. Other
areas to the north also .have additional growth potential, including an
area of high-density that could produce 800 dwellings and ultimate dev-
elopment of The Meadows as a mobile home PUD.
Although this area is immediately adjacent to the freeway, it doesn't
.have good freeway access. Even a trip downtown will require driving
through existing neighborhoods or going west to the Highway, then north.
The freeway. and Elk Creek could be liabilities to the development of this
.area. Buffering should tie applied along the freeway to reduce noise and
the floodplain of the creek could reduce the amount of available develop-
ment area. However, the creek could also be designed to provide a very
attractive centerpiece for the neighborhood. Mountain views might be
important here, but probably would be lost to the development, trees, etc.
The City might consider leaving much of this area in a district that allows
smaller lots. Large lot zoning could stifle development if there is no
interest in higher-value housing, and this area does not appear to have
that type of appeal. However, it might be a good idea to include a strip
of larger lots along the freeway for buffering purposes, possibly with a
density transfer option, as described in Study Area "B".
-0THER ZONING AMENDMENTS
BEAR CREEK GREENWAY
The Bear Creek Greenway consists of lands in County or State ownership
along Bear Creek, most of which is currently outside the City limits.
However, the City does have a BCG (Bear Creek Greenway) zoning district
which was intended to implement the Comprehensive Plan's Greenway proposal.
Unfortunately, the BCG zoning district was adopted but never included on
the Zoning Map. That amendment should be made to the Zoning Map.
EAST OF FREEWAY
The proposals in this report address only areas on the west side of the
Freeway in Central Point and its urbanizable areas. Once these areas
have been discussed and recommendations finalized, similar studies might
be done on the east side to Table Rock Road. The conclusion of this study
might be adoption of a new Zoning Map.
8
OPPORTUNITIES FOR
LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
(West of Freeway)
I
- 9 -
z+oo I zsao
iv-asn
STUDY AREA "A"
SCENIC VILLAGE SUBDIVISION
r' and DOBROT WAY
.,
~'v., Current Zoning: R-1
~'~- ' -
~ s NOTES: • Lots along Dobrot Way are generally
one-half acre or larger.
\`i • Road is private, atmosphere is semi-
. ~,` I rural and are abuts Griffin Creek and
•, ~I~ agricultural areas to the west. Could
~. ~~ . be a good candidate for R-L zoning
„~ (15,000 sq;ft. min. lot size).
• I:I ~~~ Scenic Village Sub. was developed
~ ~~~ Ifi~ to R-1-8 zoning and virtually all
•}' r lots are 8,000 s.f, or larger.
C ~I ~ ,t Could be zoned R-1-8 or R-1-10
,: k~ without adverse effects to
\ most lots. Only the large
lots along Scenic Avenue
t would be affected.
1 ~ .y
•000 ~ "" ~~' \~
'vs
1600 ~ I .11 ~ .N ' r~r ~
11 ~ f
_-' \
..,° ' ao
4200. NN • r•
a~ I \" \
3200 I ,,~ . '-~~ ~~ ' ~,~r _,\
sl~....N yN W ~"
~M 6 U
,t'~ X00 & i ~ ~, • ~ .~ _ .
i 1 ~ ~- -T
S1 Nw M_ ~.. A» y . Ny
-~. ~ ,~ NN"- T
~ _ _
..~lwr' ~ ~-J ~ .~w..
n~ -~~,''r.` -- ~~ wry- ~ ~ ~; =-....
e u
N 1
d~ \ e ' \
U
`~ ~~MOe
~'n / ~~~~ 9 MO
fG:i r•
STUDY AREA "B"
GREEN GLEN SUBDIVISION
and ADJACENT UNINCORPORATED AREAS
NOTES: _ Current Zoning: R-1 (in City)
• Major industrial area to the R-1 (proposed upon annex.)
west, across the highway. Easy
access to future jobs? Or, is
there a need for buffering?
• Green Glen Subdivision might be included in a larger lot
zoning district, such as the R-1-B, since it was developed
to that density and would not be affected by the change.
• This area has excellent access to the high school and junior high.
• The highway and Scenic Avenue provide arterial circulation to and from
this area, with easy access to the freeway via Seven Oaks Interchange.
Unincorpo~
Area propc
R-2 zonin<
NOTES:
• Large developable lots in this area,
some as large as five acres.
• Agricultural operations to the west
may be a good reason to reduce the
potential density along Grant Road
to 8,000 or 10,000 min. lot sizes.
• Southern half of the area faces other
rural-residential development west of
Grant Road and the agricultural
compatibility issue is not as great.
• Better than average views of hills to
the west, but relatively flat terrain.
• Many of the lots along the west side
of Donna Way are slightly smaller than
8,000 square feet in area. However,
the overall average lot size in this
subdivision is over 8,000 sq.ft.
- 12
STUDY AREA "C"
UNINCORPORATED AREAS
HANLEY TO GRANT ROAD
Current Zoning: Uninc. areas
proposed for R-1
upon annexation.
STUDY AREA "D"
HANLEY ROAD TO
STONEBROOK SUBDIVISION
Current Zoning: R-1 (in City)
R-1 (proposed upon
NOTES: annexation.)
• Major agricultural areas to the south. Larger lot
sizes and lower densities would reduce potential
adverse impacts.
• Relatively long distance from freeway, shopping and
employment centers, etc. Semi-rural atmosphere.
• Street system within a future subdivision in this
area would probably rely heavily on Hanley/Pine Street
and Beall Lane, both of which would need improvements.
~• Not close to railroad, freeway or other major noise
sources. Could be desirable area for more expensive homes
with larger lots and more elbow room.
• Most of this area is in the City.
• Two creeks could be '. ~ ~/~~~
valuable amenities. ~a~` '~ \~!'
~C ,
IY
i~
i
u
~R
U~
i
U•
13 -
F
(L
~`\ ~~
lvv
STUDY AREA "E"
BURSELL TO FREEWAY
NOTES: NORTH OF BEALL
• Much of this area recently annexed.
• Freeway is a potential major adverse Current Zoning: R-1 & R-2
impact on future neighborhoods and
should be buffered. Larger minimum
lot requirements could reduce impacts.
• Development in this area will have a major
impact on Freeman Road traffic (see next map).
• Elk Creek is an amenity and also a flood threat.
.. -- - - ---- - ~` ., O
j ~ + ,•;
~ r °~
<~, "
F. 1
"~ ,
\~
~ ~P`.
~~~~~
IMMINENT GROWTH AREAS
AFFECTING FREEMAN ROAD
Central Point, Oregon
AREA
DESCRIPTIONS
A• Zone: C-4 -- Major tourist-commercial development or hote~l~/motel (f 25 ac.)
B• Zone: R-3 - - Manufactured Home P.U.D. Under Const. - - 197 D.U. total.
C• Zone: R-3 - - Possible 144 D.U. medium density.
D• ZONE: R-3 - - Possible 128 D.U. high density. (t 5.1 ac.)
E• ZONE: R-3 -- Possible 545 D.U. high density. (t 21.8 ac.)
F• ZONE: R-1 -- Proposed for 29 Single-family D.U. -- Partially developed.
G• ZONE: R-1 & R-2 -- Elk Creek Neighborhood Dev. Plan -- 881 D.U. Planned.
TOTAL: 1,924 D.U. (Approx. 100 D.U. currently existing) plus commercial dev.
- 15 -