HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolution 619RESOLUTION NO. 619
A RESOLUTION DENYING APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE PLAN FOR A
MINOR LAND PARTITION
(Applicant: John Durham, as agent for Michael Remick)
(37 2W 11 TL 2402)
Recitals
1. As agent for Michael Remick, John Durham has submitted
an application for tentative approval of a minor land partition
on a .58-acre parcel, located on Cedar Street between Rostelle
Avenue and Freeman Road, in the southeast quadrant of the City of
Central Point.
2. The Central Point Planning Commission held a public
meeting on said application on January 7, 1992, and recommended
approval.
3. The Central Point City Council conducted a public
hearing on said application on February 20, 1992. The Council
reviewed the Planning Commission recommendation, the City Staff
Report, and heard testimony and comments on the application.
Now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL
POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Approval Criteria. Central Point Municipal Code
16.36.040 requires that accesses for flag lots created by
partition be at least 20 feet in width. CPMC 17.20.050 requires
that interior lots in an R-1 zone be at least 6,000 square feet
in area and 60 feet in width. CPMC 16.10 contains requirements
pertaining to the correct form and information necessary for the
application and tentative plan.
Section 2. Findings and Conclusions. The City Council finds
and determines as follows:
a. Tentative Plan Requirements. The application and
tentative plan are in the correct form and contain all of the
information required by CPMC Chapter 16.10.
b. Area, Width, and Access Requirements. The tentative
plan submitted shows the width of Parcels 1 and 2 as 60 feet.
However, there is a 5-foot easement on each parcel for access to
Parcel 3, the flag lot. The actual deeded access to the flag lot
is only 10 feet. wide. To make up the additional 10 feet required
for the flag lot access, 5 feet from Parcel 1 and 5 feet from
1 - RESOLUTION NO. 619 (031792)
Parcel 2 are added to meet the 20-foot wide requirement. If the
5-foot easements are included as being part of Parcels 1 and 2,
then those parcels are 60 feet wide and 6,000 square feet in area
as required by the Code, but the flag lot access is then only 10
feet wide. If the 5-foot easements are included in the flag lot
access, the access would meet the 20-foot wide requirement, but
Parcels 1 and 2 would be only 55 feet wide and 5,500 square feet
in area. Either way, it is not possible to meet both the flag
lot access standard and the minimum width and area requirements
without counting the 5-foot easement areas twice.
The Council concludes that the 5-foot x 100-foot easement
areas may be included in Parcels 1 and 2; or, those areas may
instead be included in the flag lot access. But they cannot be
included in both. Because the easement areas are shown on the
tentative plan as being part of Parcels 1 and 2, the flag lot
access is only 10 feet in width, and the application is denied on
that basis.
Passed by the Co ncil and signed by me in authentication of
its passage this ~~ day of ~'~,~4~t~~J 1992.
~~ ~ P
Mayor. oger Westensee
ATTEST:
4~ ~.
City Representative
Approved. by me this day of 1992.
Mayor oger Westensee
2 - RESOLUTION N0. 619 (031792)