HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrdinance 1419ORDINANCE NO . ~'~°'~
AN ORDINANCE DECLARING THE COUNCIL°S INTENT TO ANNEX A
CONTIGUOUS PARCEL OF PROPERTY OWNED BY L. FRANEK, J. McGINNIS,
T. BARNES AND D. SMITH, WITHOUT AN ELECTION AND TO WITHDRAW SUCH
PROPERTY FROM FIRE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY
AUTHORITY AND SETTING A DATE FOR PUBLIC HEARING THEREON
WHEREAS, a petition has been filed with the City of
Central Point requesting and consenting to the annexation of the
following described parcel of real property contiguous to the
City of Central Point, by the owners of said parcel, L. Franek,
J. McGinnis, T. Barnes and D. Smith, and
WHEREAS, the Council has elected pursuant to ORS 222.120
to dispense with an election in said annexation proceeding, and
to withdraw said property, if annexed, from Jackson County Fire
District No. 3 and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority, now,
therefore,
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DO ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Proceedings are hereby initiated for annexa-
tion to the City of Central Point of a parcel of approximately
13.5 acres. located in the vicinity of Beall Lane and Snowy Butte
Road, (J. C. Map Page 37-2W-lODA, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300 & 400),
which parcel is more particularly described as followsd
Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot "R"
of the Snowy Butte Orchards, according to the
Official Plat thereof, now of record in Jackson
County, Oregon; thence South 89° 59' East along
the South line of Lot. "R" and Lot "S" of said
subdivision, 780.35 feet; thence North parallel
with the East line of said Lot "R" 30..00 feet
to the North right of way line of Beall Lane
(County Road) for the point of beginning;
thence continue North parallel with said East
lot line 882.90 feet to the South line of Lot
page 1 - Ordinance No.
"L" in said Snowy Butte Orchards; thence
East along the North lines of Lots "S'° and
"T" in said Snowy Butte Orchards, 577.55
feet to the Northeast corner of said Lot
"T"; thence along the Easterly line of
said Lot "T", South 02° 57' West 68..5 feet;
thence South 21° Ol° East 353.9 feet; thence
South 06° 09' West 487.0 feet to intersect
the North right of way line of said Beall
Lane; thence West along said North right of
way line 645..75 feet. to the point of begin-
ning. Containing 13.5 net acres, more or less.
Section 2. The public hearing on the question of
annexation of the above described parcel of real property to
the City of Central Point and for withdrawing said property
from Jackson County Fire Protection District No. 3 and Bear
Creek Valley Sanitary Authority will be held at the regular
meeting of the Central Point City Council on the,~'~ -day of
1981 commencing at 7:00 p.m., at the Central
Point City Hall, at which date, time and place all interested
persons may appear to be heard on the question of said annexa-
tion and withdrawal.
Section 3. The City Recorder is directed to cause
notice of hearing on the issues of annexation and withdrawal
to be published once each week for two successive weeks prior
to the date of hearing in the Medford Mail Tribune, a newspaper
of general circulation in the City of Central Point, Oregon,
with the second publication to be no less than 24 hours prior to
the hearing and shall cause notices of the hearing to be posted
in four public places in the city for two successive weeks prior
to the date of hearing.
Section. 4. This ordinance being necessary for the
Page 2 - Ordinance No. _
immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety
of the City of Central Point, Oregon, in order that publication
of notice of said public hearings may commence immediately upon
passage hereof, an emergency is hereby .declared to exist and
this ordinance shall be in full. force and effect immediately.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication
of its passage this f~~ day of z,~,~, 1981.
'~'
P~ayor
ATTEST:
~_'``y f
Mayor
Page 3 - Ordinance No. ,/g~/ j
WGCog
~ BEFORE T}IE PLANNING COti1tiIISSION AND Tk-IE CITY COUiVCIL OF THE
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON:
CONCURRENT APPLICA'T'IONS FOF~ ANNEXATION, )
ZONING DESIGNATION TO R-3 AND A COND- )
ITIONAI.~ USE PERi~~lIT FOR A PARCEL OF APP- )
ROXIMATELY 1 ACRE, LOCATED ADJACENT TO )
INTERSTATE 5 APPROXIMATELY 2238 FEET )
EAST OF' FREEMAN ROAD AND APPROXIMATELY)
?84 FEET NORTH OF HOPKINS ROAD: MORE )
COMMONLY KNOPIN AS TAX LOT 100 , 37 2.W )
11A, IN JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON. )'
GENERAL:
Intermountain f-Iome
Sys>tems, Ltd, Appli c.an
RCS MANAGEMENT ~ INC . ,
Agent:
'1 he purpose of the annexation, coning desis?nati_on anci con-
ditional use permit requests far the subject property is
primarily to provide design continuity for the project known
as The Meadows,°' a development of appraximate]_y 266 units
of pre-manufactured housing in Central Poin~i;. Preliminary
design plans indicate that the subject property, a triangu7_ar
parcel lying between "The Meadows" and T_nt.c~:~state 5 is to
be developed as an extension of the development, primarily
as recreational facilities (tennis courts) and. for storage
of recreational vehicles such as motor homes, boats, campers
etc. , for residents of "`Che Meadows." 'The. propert~~ is also
.being .considered necessary for providing f'c~z`~ ~i.cldi-tional
drainage of tale project .
'k'hese findings are submitted to provide 1.;hr_ C:i.~t.,y of C;entz°aa.
Point with information in order to act on concurrent; app-
lications for annexation, designation of the site to R--3
and a conditional use permit for the site. Further testimony
will be presented during the public hearing process.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Compliance 1.Jith State and Local AnnExation Requirements
The City of Central Pon-l:. can findthat the appl~.cation
:f:'or annexation does comply with. the provisions of ORS
222.111, which stipulates that the,parcel_ under consideraaion
:E'or annexation must be contiguous with the City Limits.
(Reference: Exhibit No. 5).
The City of Central F'oint can find that the application
also complies with the provisions of ORS 222.170 in that
the "triple majority" requirements are mci.; specifically,
fi.hat snore than one-half the owners who own snore than one
half the land area in the territory ~~nd representing; more
than one half the assessed valuation. of the territory
proposed for annexation have consented in writing to the
annexation (Reference:. Exhibil:s No. 1 rind Exh:i,bit No. 6) .
,.
'~ Intermountain: 2
Compliance with the Central Point Comprehensive Plan:
The City of Central Point can fir_d that the proposed annex-
ation, zoning designation of R-3 and. a Conditional. Use Pern~rit
for the site conforms with the Comprehensive Plan, both
the Land Use tap and the Text of the Plan. Specifically,
1. The site is included wit}.zin f:P~e Urban. Growth I3oundar•y
. for the City of Central Point;
2. The property is'''designated on the Comprehensive Land
Use ;vfap as ~-ID (High Density Residential) ;
3. F-t~3 is an appropriate use tivithin the HD area;
4. A conditional use for mobile home parks is al~,owed
in an R-3 Zoning District upon issuance of a Con--
ditional Use Permit by the City.
_The applications further conform with t}-rc~ fol]_owir'~g speci.f:i c:
areas,of the Comprehensive Plan text:
Goals and Objectives (.Chapter ?)
~~
(6Vi11 the Comprehensive Plan. reflect the following?)
- an orderly and reasonable expansion o:(' i:l~re Cc~ntr~a:l. 1?oi.n~[:
Urbanizing Area?
- does the plan encourage the enhancement of private property
values by indicating a compatible arrangement of land uses?
- does the plan provide ~a flexibility of residenti.aa_ living
areas and .housing :types to meet the needs of a growing pop--~
ulation? .
- does the plan provide to the coaununity.the convenience of
adequate shopping areas, improved transportation. pattern arrc~.
an increase in localized employment opporl~unities?
- does the plan indicate the most logicr~l_ and. econorni.ca.7_ cx--
pansion of community facilities and seru_ces?
- does the plan provide for an adequate system of pa~,lc a.nd
recreational areas in the community?"
In examination of the application, it can be easily found
that the expansion of the City Li;,tits by appr~oxirna.tely 7.
acre, particularly due to the configuration and location
of the site, is reasonable, end orderly. Since the land.
will be used for private industr~r, is in conformance with
the land use designation of the plan, and will be incorpor-
ated as recreational use propert~° into an approved mob:i_7.e
home subdivision with access. to ~~ major transportation
~~
. ~~~b ~~~s~~~
. ~~ ~
Intermountain: 3
arterial, and is not going to have an effect on community
facilities and services, the City of Central Point can find
that the- applications do comply with the Goals and Objectives
as outlined in the Central Point Comprehensave Pa an.
Land Use Element (Chapter 5)
The applications before the City can be found to comply with.
the fo1_lowing "General Policies for DeVeloJ_~ment" found, in the
Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan:
The residential development of the area should. follow an
orderly pattern, leapfrogging or sporadic develoJ~rnent is
discouraged.
All residential uses will be required to make provisions for
off-street parking consistent with the needs of thc~ development.
N:ew developments should be designed so tha.l: a.ndividual units
are not required to have immediate vehicular access to major•
arterial roadways."
Further, the Policies for Development as ou.f;).i.ned in t:he
Residential section of the Land Use Element. note,
" A wide variety of housing. types should be encouractcd.
Density and use regulations should offer ~,. proper range. with
in the city to meet this demand..
The grouping of limited income housing should be avoided,.
thereby not directly causing fixture social JarobJ_~ms>.
New methods of home construction such as modular design should
be considered within the city, with objectives aimed, aL prov:ids.nc.
less expensive housing costs for the buyer."~
Based upon an examination of. thcs~ r.a.ses for -f.l~c pr~caJ>osc~tl s%~t:C,:
and its contiguity with the project called '-'The Meadows",
it can be found that the applications are :i:rr conf'orrnance with
the above policies and goals as expressed in -the Comprehensive
Plan.
3-tousng Element (Chapter 8)
According to the statistics compiled in the 7.9"13 ~di~:ion
of the Comprehensive Plan, approximately,2.'7 percent of the
housing in the City of Central Point was provided by mobile
homes, with over 80 J~ercent provided by conventional single
family dwellings. Further, two major areas of concern were
outlined in the plan:
r~
--
j ~ Intermountain: 4 .
1) A significant number of families are spending
in excess of 25 percent of their income for hous3.ng.
2) A definite lack of a variety of housing choices.
by type or income level is evident.
Since the property known as "The P~9e.adows"' .s an attempf:
to provide a diversified alternative to conventional singJ_e
family housing, and since the subject parcel. is to be used
as a non-residential extension of the project, but a necessary
one, the City of Central Point can find that the proposed
annexation, zoning designation ,and application for a condition-
al use permit is in accordance with the policies expressed
in the Housing Element, .and will help .address the major areas
of concern as expressed in the plan. - "
The City of. Central Point can find that the applications
also conform with the basic policies as outlined by Chapter
9 (Administration and Implementation) in t}gat the changes '
to the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the policies
and objectives of the comprehensive plan, and with. other
city policies, specifically Ordiance 1~6F3, in.permitti.ng
concurrent applications. .
Based upon. the above,. the City o:f Centraal I'oJ.llt can find that
the applications for annexation, zoning and the condition a7.
use permit do conform with the City of Central Point Comp-
rehensive Plan.
Compliance with City of Central Point Planning Goals:
The City of Central Point Planning Goals, as developed and
defined .in the Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 4) outJ_ine.the
specific policies and goals for the city. Based upon the '
information as presented above regarding ~:he C~.i:y Compre-~ -
hensive Plan, the City of Central Pointe can find ti"~ai: the
applications do conform to the City of Central Point p7_anning
goals.
Compliance with Statewide Planning Goals:
Ln addition to the City of Central Point Planning Goals and
Comprehensive Plan, the application for annexation must
address itself to the Statewice Planning GoaJ.s as set by
the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission
(LCDC). This compliance i~ outlined as foJ.].ows:
~~
~' '
Intermountain: 5
Compliance with the Statewide Planning Goals:
Goal No. 1: Citizen Involvement: The City of Central
Point can. find that the public hearing and citizen advisory
process currently in use by the city does .meet the criteria
established by Goal No. 1 in that the City has adopted
and.. publicised a citizen. invc?lvernent prrr~rram by which the
general public is involved in 't:he ongoirrg J_and use planning
decisions within the city. Such program is included as
a provision of the Central Poirit Comprehensive Plan.
Goal No. 2: Land Use Planning: The City of Central Point
can find that the.. criteria of Goal No. 2 are being met
as the City currently has adopted a Comprehensive Plan,
which will provide the planning and policy framework for
all land use decisions in the City. The Comprehensive
Plan complies with the existing LCDC goals, and the City
has also adopted by ordinance planning policies°and '
procedures, and has adopted an urban growth boundary as
well. ,Based upon. this information, the City of Central
Point can find that the applications are.in conformance
with these policies, and the provisions of Goal No. 2.
Goal No . 3 : A~riculf:ural Land: Goal No . 3 , ``'To preserve
and maintain agricultural lands" is not applicable, since
the subject property lies within the urb<:an growth boundary
of the City of Central Point, ~.u-~d such incJ.u~ .on indicates
the property is urban:izable and suitable for urban develop-
ment. Soil classification on the property is I`'; however,.
the parcel size (just under 1 acre) is such that commercial
agricultural use would be difficult if. not: irnpossible.
Based upon the above, the City can find that the applications
do conform with the provisions of Goal 1Vo. 3.
Goal No. 4: Forest Lands: Goal Ido. 4 is non-applicable
since there is no marketable timber on the site, nor is
the property designated as forest. Furt:l~~er, since inclusion,
of the property into the urE~an gr~o~.vth bound.<~ry has been
established, the City of Central Point can find that the
land is ur~banizabl.e, acid that f-he appJ_icat:i.o~'is do conform
with i.he criteria of Goal No. ~.
Goal No. 5: Open Space, Scenic and Historical Areas:
Goal No. 5 is designed to conserve open space and protect
natural and scenic resources. Again, since the subject
property is contained within the urban growtl-a boundary of
the City, and since the property is adjacent to a major
interstate freeway, the annexation, zoninc; and use of
the property as proposed will not viol<1te any of the
specific provisions of Goal No. 5, as folJ_ows:
A) The land is not needed ar desired f.'oz:~ open spare;
l~ ~~~~~~~~ ~ ~~
~.
Intermountain:: 6
B) There are no mineral or aggregate resources on '
the site;
C) There are no energy sources on the site; _
D) The site is not ecologically or scientificall
•
significant, y
nor is the site a si.gni_fcant fis}~
or wildlife . area;
E) There is no
site; outstanding scenic ori_cntation for the
F) The site is
wetland not adjacent. to, or near any significant
s or watershed area;
G) There are no historical structures or sites. on. the
property;
N) The site has
d no significant cultural relationships
or
esiglzation; -
I) The site is not-near nor included in any recreational
trail, wild or scenic waterway as designated either
by the State of Oregon or the.Federal. government.
Based upon the above criteria, the City of Centra)_ point can
find that the proposed project does not vi.ol_a.te any of •t:he
provisions of Goal No. 5.
Goal No. 6: Air,TWater and Land Resources Qua---1-=~1'_
Since the site is not generally acceptab7_e for agricultural.
uses (size, location within the Rrban Growth F3oundar~,
Class IV unirrigated soils, adjacent to freeway) it ~s the
opinion of the applicant that the property can~be generally
accepted as developable urban land. The pr~•oposed use of
the property will not entail any further extension of public
services such as water, sewer or refuse rcmoval_; 7_ilcewi:sc,
the proposed use (recreation and parking) i.s essentially
"clean" from an environmental standpoint, i.n that .air. and
water pollution from the site will not be cfeneratcd. Adequate
drainage will be provided by the developer so additonal down-
stream drainage impacts will be avoided. Use of the property
as proposed is in conformance with accep~:ed deve7_opment p7.ans
and will provide a space buffer for those Izomes cSosest to
the freeway, in terms of noise.
Based upon an examination of the site, and the. above, the
City of Central Point can find that the project i:s in
conformance with the criteria of Goal. No. G.
1~
~~~~~~~9~ k 9 ~ ~~'
_ (~ .-
Intermountain: '7
r
Goal No. ?: Areas Subject to Natural Disasters & Hazards:
Since the subject property lies outside any recognized
floodplain as defined by HUD, and is not located in a major
seismic or volcanic hazard.. ar~c~r~., ,the City of Cent:ra]. Point
can find that the annexation rand development oi' tl-Je sa_t.e
will not v~.olate the provisarZS ~:~.{' Goal- No. '!.
Goal No. 8: Recreational Needs of Citizens and Visitors:
The intent of the provisions of Goal No. 8 seem to imply
that all comprel-rensive plans adopted by loca]. government
agencies must address the question of prove.ding for a
substantial amount of recreational opportunities.. Since
the proposed use of the site incl_~ides recreationa]_ facilities
for the residents of the project, and since the question of
area wide recreational facilities is addressed, by the County
and the. City of Central Point in that they have provided f.'or
recreational opportunities on a city and country ].eveJ_ ('TI7e
.Jackson County Exposition grounds as a case in point),
The City of Central Point can ...find that the annexat;i.on,
zoning and use of the property is in con:E'ormance tiv~.th the
provisions of Coal No. 8. ~ .
Goal No. 9: Economy of the Stilt;c:: The provi.si.c>n~; of
Goal No. 9 are, specif:ically, " 'I'o divers:.fy. rind. improve
the economy of the state."
The proposed annexation, zoning designation. and use of the
property will have an insignificant effect on tI-rc economy
of the state. However, the property is an extension. of a
project that wil_1 generate an approximate 2?_ 1711, ~. ].101'1 do].lar•_5
in the local economy over the three year pel,i.od for develop-
ment of the sites in addition the development}-fas been anal.
will_be providing jobs for the local economy. Based upon
this information, it can be found that ti-re projc:r_tred annex-
ation, zoning and use of the }~ror~c>rty w:i_]_J. not; v~.olate any
of the provisions of Goal No. C3, but will have a, small
positive impact as part: o.f' a :L.~trc~,~cr devc.]_oprnent .
Goal No. 10: Housi.n~': 'T'here is now, and has I_>cen for some
time, a demonstrated need for• housing in Jackson Gounty and
the various cities that make up the urban development centers
within the county. The demonstrated need is based upon the
statements in the Central Point Comprehensive Plan, The
Jac}cson County i-}o using Mar}cet Analysis as prr-_pared by t}ie
Oregon State Division a:C Housing (July 1378) r,nd ti~re
Greater Medford Area Chamber ot.' Commerce 'task T~'or•ce on
Housing. In additon, in July o:f' 1979, a consortiur;~ ]mown
as Citi.ens f'or 1-Iousine; comtn:issioned a review oi' tl~e
Jac}cson County Housi.r~g Element, which provided adcliti.onal.
. . _.
~,~ ~..
Intermountain.: 8
statistical data on housing and housing need in Jackson
Cot.tnty and the local communities. Since the proposed
annexation, zone designation and conditional use permit
applications are for a parcel that is scheduled for inclusion
into a 226 unit manufactured housing development, the City
of Central Point can find that the provisions of Goal No. 10
have been met.
Goal No. 11: Public Facilities and Services: The City of
Central Point, by including the subject property in the
area within the~Urban Growth Boundary, has demonstrated that
the logical use for the property is for urban development,
and has assumed responsibilit~~ to plan f'or provision of
public services to the site. However, since the site is
being developed as a privately owned manufactured housing
community, and the subject parcel will be used for parking.
and recreation., the City of Central Point can find. that
the annexation and subsequent development of the site wi7_]_
not affect the public facilities of the city, and that
such development is in conformance with. the criteria of
Goal No. 11.
Goal No. 12: Transportation: Goal No. 12 is designed to
"provide and encourage a safe and convenicni: econom~_ca7.
transportation system." As in the case of all the Statewide
goals, Goa1.No. 12 is specifically oriented to addressing
the provisions of a transportation plan as developed by
the local government agencies. The annexation of the subject
parcel, and subsequent use of the parcel, does not conflict
with any of the provisions of Goal No. 12. Since the. parent
development is adjacent to Interstate 5 and freeman Road,
which is a major arterial for that segment of Central. Point,
it can be found by the city that the annexation and use of
the site as proposed is in conformance with the development .
plan, which does conform with Goal No. 12. -.
Further, Section B-3 of Goal \o. 12 specifir.~~:1.7.y addresses.
property adjacent to major transportation facilities, and
refers such development to the local jurisdiction: .
°13. Lands adjacent to major mass tr~.nsit stations,
freeway interchanges, and other major a=ir, Land
and water terminals, should be managed and contro7.led
so as to be consistent with and supportive of.,
the land use and development patterns identified
in the Comprehensive Plan of the j urisdicti.on with:i.n
which the facilities are located."
~lgain,~ since the subject actions are in conformance with
the Central Point Comprehensive. Plan, they do not violate
the provisions of Goal No. 12.
e~
__.
.x
Intermountain: 9
f
Goal No. 13: Energy Conservation: The provisions of Goal
No. 13 are, simply, "'To Conserve Energy." The mere act
of. annexation and designation of a zoning district will
not have~any impact on energy conservation or use. However,
use of the site for recreation and parking for recreational
vehicles will have a slight impact on~energy conserva~~ion,
in that residents of.' the development wi.7.1. not I~~ave to .drive
to other sites for e_it:her recreational uses or for sf.oraJe
of their vehicles. Incorporation of the site into the
approved development (The ~Ieadows) wi.l]_ result in a saving
of energy, in compliance with Goal No. 13.
Goal No. 14: Urbanization: The provisions of Goal \o.
14 are specifically directed again at local. jurisdictions
in developing procedures for (1) "An order.l.y and efficient
transition from rural to urban land use," and (2) "Ura"an .
Growth Boundaries shall be established to identify and
separate'urbanizable land from rural Land."
Because the subject parcel is included within the urban
Growth Boundary as shown on the Comprehensi.vc~ Land Use '~iap
~f the City of Central Point, and is shown as an ur.•ban use
on that map (High Density Residential) the. City of: Central
Point can find that the annexation, zona_ng des~nation.and
conditional use of the property as a recreational and parking
area is in con:f'ormance with the urbanization }~o.licies of
the City, and conforms witt-r the provi,s.i.ons of Gcra1 No.. 1•~}.
Public Need and Need Best stet:
The requirements of the.City of Central Point in terms of
burden of proof for all land use decisions (pri:marily zone
changes and Conditional 'Use permits) genera]. ]_y address the
concept of public need and Need Best iviet, as determinzd by
the Fasano decision. I-Iowever, in December of 1979 the
Supreme Court of the State of Oregon, in )~iauri.ne Neuberger
and others v. City of Portland and others, issued a decision
which is an important departure from a portion of the Court's
1973 decision of I'asano, and has a bearing on land use
decisions at the loc<-z:i level. The court said,
°t~` ^1'he LCDC goals and guidelines were formulated
.after tiie Fasano decision and the Commission
undoubtedly had that case in mind during the
- drafting process. We find it significant that
the Commission, under those circumstances,
made no mention whatsoever in Goa]. No. 2 of a
requirement that the site of a proposed zone
change be compareci with other a.vai].able property."
ZO .
~~~~T~
Intermountain: 10
"The Commission did express its concern that
certain. amendments ought to be supported by
~a factual showing of "public need", but chose
to express that concern as a guideline or
suggestion rather than to incorporate it i_n
a mandatory rule or-goal..
We find, then, no statutory or L,CDC requirement
that a showing of either public need or a comp-
arision with other available property is a spec-
fic~and independent prerequisite to a zoning
amendment. In light of the cont%nuous legislative
and. agency attention to the p7.anning and zone
process since the Fasano decision, we~conclude
that the legislature and L.CDC have not fo wed
it necessary to impose. such requirements."
1
In our opinion, the decision basically states that. l.oce~J.
jurisdictions, in adopting a Comprehensive Plan, have-
in fact assessed the public need for certain types o~•:Land
use, and if the proposed change is in conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan the land use must meet that. need.
In support of this application, however, the City of Central.
Point can find that a demonstrated p~.iblic need does exist
for additonal lower cost housing in the r_irea. 7'he ~..°eports
on housing requirements for• Jackson County referred to in
the discussion of Goal 10 have provided the following
factual, statistical. basis for housing need in the area;
this need is also supported in the Central Point Comprehensive
Plan, as outlined in the Housing Element:
"The-.present annual housing demand. is for 928
single family units and 8"lO rental units, for
a total of 1,798 housing units in Jacltson County."
--Housing for People, July, 1979..
State Court Administrator, Supreme Cotir~ Elui7.ding,
Salem, Oregon, 97310: CASLS DECIDED,. Dec. 4, 1979.
21
}
Irrterrnountain: 1_l
"Housing vacancy rates in Jackson County also
provide an indicator of a strong hous~.ng need.
The county has been characterized by a low vacancy
rate; total vacant units declined by about 259
between 1970 and 1978. T'he sales vacancy ~:~ate
only increased from 1.78% in 1970 to 1..80% in
1978, while the rental rate droppc;d :('rom 7.34 a.n
1970 to an estimated 2.5~ in July of" 1978."
--.Housing for People, July, 1979.
-- State Division of Housing t~tarlcet Analysis
Report £or Jackson County, Oregon, 1.978
The Fair Share allocation, based .upon. the number of l~~ouseholds
in the County as projected in the Housing for People study,
indicates that the City of Central Point, by the year
2000, will need to generate approximately 6288 new hous7.ng
units to meet anticipated population growth, or approximately
31~ units per year.. Since the development of the ">~leadows"
will provide :266 units over the next three year period of
development, it can be found that the project is meeting
a public need; by extrapolation, the addito n of t:he proposed
tennis courts and recreational vehicle parking scheduled for•
the subject property as part of the totaJ_ project, can be
found. to be addressing the public need aspects as 1ve11.
Eidverse Impact
The City of Central Point can find that the annexation,
zoning designation of F2-3 and use o.f the property as
recreational vehicle storage and tennis courts,' under
the nr~ovisions of the Conditional. Use permit procedure,
will have no adverse i.inpact upon the neighborhood. The
adjacent property is being developed for high--density
housing, ar7d the site is of a size anal conformance as
to accomodate the uses as .outlined. in. these fi.nda.nc?s..
The relationship of the subject parcel to the devel.apment
known as "The Meadows" is such that :i.t _s a. J.ogical. ex-
tension of ~Jillcuts Drive; the parcel is Located t:o
provide storage and recreation for the beni.:f'it of the
residents of the development with a rninimal_ impact on
the residential uses. Ingress, egress and internal
circulation of. traffic within the subject parcel will. be
outlined on the development plan, and landscaping,
buffering and other conditions imposed by i;he City wi_11
be erected as part of the requirements under the Concli_tional_
Use permit procedure.
2 2-
~tt~~..~a~~T~~ ~ ~
C M
A '
f .
,i
'r"
G~
,~
Intermountain: 12
GQNCLUSIpNARY FINDINGS
Based upon the evidence submitted., and the testimony of
the applicant, the City of Central Point can find:
1. That the application for annexation of. the subject
parcel to the City of GentraJ_ Poin~~ complies with
all appropriate state anal local requirements for
annexation.
2. That the findings support a zoning designation of
R-3 for the site, in conformance with the City of
.:Central Point Cornprehensive Plan, and appropriate
LCDC requirements.
3. That the application for a conditional use permit
for the subject parcel to be included into the
development known as "The Meadows". a.s r~ecreationaJ_
and storage for recreational vehicles conforms with
the criteria established by the City of Central
Point.
Based upon the above, the applicant respectfully requests
that the City of Central Point schedule the appropriate.
public hearings for the annexation, desa.~;nati.on oj' R-3
zoning for the property, and conditional use of the
property. .
Respectfully Submitted,
~~<~6%'
~~
~J .M. LaNier
RCS MANAGEMENT, INC.
J
2 -3
~ ~ / -
"~ inutea ~''\~
.February 19, 1980 Planning Commission Meeting
Central Point Council Chambers
I. Meeting called to order by Chaira~n Nordby at ~<30 pas-®
II® Roll Call found the following caembera.preaent: Chairman Nordbyp Hillyer,
MacDonald' and Stallaworth. Commissioner Thelen contacted R®3® Ritchey at
4:00 p.m. and informed him that he was ill and could not attend tonights meeting
Also absent was member Sorensen.. Others present were.: Dave Kucera~Gity Admin~
iatratore R®.T. RitcheyaBuilding ®fficial/Planning Director, Mike LaNierg Paul.
and. Mrs. Perrault® Larry Denn and Georg Stotler®cte Ruyter~®Planning Cor~isaion _-
Secretary.
III. Motion by Hillyer, second. by MacDonald to approve the ~linutea,of the
February S, ]..980 Planning:Commisaion Meeting. A11 in favors t~rotion carri€.de
IV. Correspondence
R.J. Ritchey read a notification of a Citizena~Advieory Committee Meeting
to be held idedneaday, February 20, 1980 in the Chorus Room at 8cenic.dunior HigYis
on the topic of the Seven. Oaks Interchange Area.
No Public Appearances. ~.. .
V. No Old Business
~I. Neva Business .
~..~ .Public Hearing ® Conditional Use Permit for a triangular parcel
of ground, abutting the Meadows Mobile Home Park on the Easter. ~`he
.application is to allow the subject property to be included in the Meadowa.Mobile
Home Park, subject to the approval. o€ the Annexation and Tone Change from. County
to City®R.®3 for said parcel. Intermountain Horse Systems, Ltd.D Appl:icanta
Cheri . n Nordby .opened the Public Hearing portion of they me~:ting and R®.~a F~itchey,
Building ®fficial®Planner presented the Staff Report stating that the applicant
had carried the burden of proof, aubstaatiated.=by the proponents exhibits and
findings, and entered int® the record the following.exhibita: Planning Commission
Exhibit~#1 Leag~l notice provided .of thy: hearing; P.C. Exhibit #Z ~ PraponentQs
application, exhibits and findings; and P.C. Exhibit 3 ~ a copy of a 99 yeax•
Iease agreeffierat for subject property between Trevor B` Hare and Intermountain Horse .
Systems.
Mike LaNier of RCS Management Inc, Medforda OR, represertti;,ng Intermountain. Home.
Systems Ltd, presented the proponents findings (Council Exhibit #3) for
concurrent review of applications for ®nnexation~ Zoning Designation and a Gand®
itional U ere Permit. Mr. Lal~ier stated that the subject property is included within
the Urban Growth Boundary for the. City of Central Point; the property ie designated
on the Comprehensive Land Use Map as HDaHigh.Density Residential; Gity Boning of
R-3 lMultiple Family is appropriate within the HD area; and. Mobile Iiome:Parra axe
a conditional use in an R®3 Zoning District upon issuance of a Conditional Use
Permit® Mr..LaNier continued,atating that the subject property was included in
the initial proposal. of several years ago, as storage and recreation area and it
is planned to develop the parcel as such capon inclusion. in the Meadows Park as it
is a logical extension of the park.
" e~inutes `'
Planning Commission Meeting
February 19, 1980 page 2
~,„ J, -
Chairman Nordby closed the public portion of the hearir~g~. Upon exanjination of.
the exhibits, deliberations and discussions, a motion was made by Cou~aissioner
MacDonald, with a second by Commissioner Hillyer, to adopt the findings as
:presented for the Conditional Use Permit and. approve said. permit subject to Council
approval of the Annexation and Zone Change of the subject parcel® Roll Call. vote
found all in favor, motion passed® "
After further deliberations and discussion, a ffiotion waa: made by Member Mae. Donald.
with a second by Member Stallsworth to draft a resolution to the Council recormmer~ding "
.approval. of the Annexation and Zone Change® "Roll Call vote found all in favor,
motion carri~d®
..Boa Public Hearing Conditional Use Permits Home Application
.107 Donna Way, Paul Perreault, Applicant. Public Hearing was opened
by Chairman Nordby® R.®.3® Ritchey, Building Official.®Planner presented the Staff
Report which included the following exhibitsz #1 legal Notice of Hearing, ~2
Proponents~Application and findings, ~3 Proponents written statements®
Mr® Ritchey stated that ttie application waa to performs carpet cleaning services
outside the home, the proposal will create no adverse impact on the neighborhood,
..there will be no increase in traffic; no off®atreet parking'is required., there
will be no outward manifestations of a business being conducted at the residence "
Mr® Ritchey added that Item ~4 of Staff Report should include the Municipal Code
.provision that the~only sign displayed be no larger than..1 aq® ft®
Public portion of the hearing waa closed and after deliberations a motion was
made by Commissioner Mac Donald to draft a Resolution of Approval far said Condi®
tional Use Permit, second by Hillyer® Roll Cpll vote found.. all in fevar, motion
carried®
C® .1068 Plan Review Duplex, 442 North First Street, Larry Denn, Applicar-tio
R®J® Ritchey, Building Official®Planner presented the Staff Report-and
.added that Item ~6 regarding a potential drainage problem may not be the problem
that waa ariticipated® Mr® Ritchey and Vern Capps, Public Works Superintendent,
had inspected the. site and it doeen®t look as bad as waa thought®.
In regards to Item ~9 of the Staff Report requiring surveying and, staking of the
subject property as a condition of approval, Mr® Denn stated that a boundary line
agreement. had been reached with the property owner to the east and the pins
establishing that line have been set and that Verlyn Thomas had been retained to'
survey, stake and.. draft a metes and bounds descriptian for the propertym
rlr® Ritchey added Item X10 to the Staff Report;.~10 ®A condition of approval
will be the paving of the parking.placea® IIr® Ritchey also stated that the only
foreseeable problem is getting the building. high enough to get rota the sanitary
sewer, said sewer being abount 20 inches below groundQ
After deliberations, a motion was made by Commissioner Stallaworth to adopt the
Staff Report with additions as findings and approve the 1068 Plan Review Secon~~
by Mac Donald® Roll Call vote found all in favor, motion caxrieda