HomeMy WebLinkAboutPklanning Commission packet - July 2, 2013 A
CENTRAL
POINT
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
July 2,2013 - 6:00 p.m.
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Planning Commission members Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Tim Schmeusser, Tom Van
Voorhees, Susan Szczesniak, Craig Nelson Sr. and Kay Harrison
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
Review and approval of May 7, 2013 Planning Commission Minutes. Review and
approval of February 5, 2013 Minutes.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing, Proposed amendment to the Gray Court Planned Unit
Development located at 500—552 Gray Court, Central Point.
B. Proposed amendment to Chapter 12, Trees, of the Central Point Municipal
Code
VII. DISCUSSION
A.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
February 5, 2013
I• MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Susan Szczesniak, Tim Schmeusser,
Tom Van Voorhees, Craig Nelson, Sr. and Kay Harrison were present.
Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director,
Don Burt, Planning Manager; Connie Clune, Community Planner; and Didi
Thomas, Planning Secretary.
Chairman Piland welcomed Kay Harrison as the newest member of the Planning
Commission.
III. CORRESPONDENCE —None
IV. MINUTES
Mike Oliver made a motion to approve the minutes of the January 8, 2013
Planning Commission meeting. Tim Schmeusser seconded the motion. ROLL
CALL: Oliver, yes; Szczesniak, yes; Schmeusser, yes; Van Voorhees, yes;
Nelson, yes; Harrison, abstained. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None
VI. BUSINESS
A. File No. 12003. Eastside Transit Oriented Development (TOD) District--
Consideration of a Resolution forwarding a favorable recommendation to the
City Council to approve the Eastside Transit Oriented development District
(ETOD). Applicant: City of Central Point
Don Burt, Planning Manager, presented a staff report in support of a favorable
recommendation to the City Council for approval of an Eastside Transit Oriented
Development District. Mr. Burt explained that there had been two public hearings
and several neighborhood meetings to obtain input, answer questions and discuss
use and zoning changes that would occur.
Mr. Burt then reviewed the proposed changes to language in the code based upon
comments made at public hearings. Changes affect sections 17.66 and 17.67 of
Planning Commission Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 2
the City's Municipal Code including criteria for what constitutes a master plan
and clarifying the requirement to address adjacent properties and land uses.
Referring to the letter received from the Oregon Department of Transportation
(ODOT) on January 8, 2013, Mr. Burt stated that the City has completed a
Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) addressing the issue of"significant affect"
and finds that the Eastside TOD will not result in a significant affect to current or
future transportation facilities. In addition, staff does not recommend that the
City adopt the draft IAMP33 or enter into an Intergovernmental Agreement at this
time as requested by ODOT. Mr. Burt presented a slide presentation with
projections for peak hour trips and explained why the land use doesn't constitute a
"significant affect" as it is defined in the Oregon Administrative Rules.
Mr. Burt noted that the Resolution includes provisions to continue with
participation in the IAMP 33 improvements planning, amend its TSP later to
incorporate the final IAMP 33 plan and work with ODOT on the preparation and
adoption of an intergovernmental agreement. The City is agreeable to working
with ODOT in an effort to implement the Regional Plan which increases density
standards for all Rogue Valley cities.
Tom Humphrey pointed out that the City of Central Point took an aggressive
approach in the mid-2000's to determine what impacts east side development and
build out would have on transportation systems. Since then, the City has
developed a regular capital improvements program including financial
mechanisms like Urban Renewal to pay for improvements.
Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution No. 789 forwarding a
favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the Eastside
Transit Oriented Development District proposal. Tim Schmeusser seconded
the motion. ROLL CALL: Szczesniak, yes; Schmeusser, yes; Van Voorhees,
yes; Nelson, yes; Harrison, yes; Oliver, yes. Motion passed.
B. File No. 13005. Amendments to Central Point Municipal Code R-2,
Residential Two-Family District, CPMC Section 17.24 -- Consideration
of legislative Land Use Regulation amendments to Section 17.24, R-2
Residential Two-Family District. The text amendment would allow an
applicant the choice to develop utilizing the Transit Oriented Development
Low Mix Residential (TOD-LMR) standards of Section 17.65 or the
existing R-2 standards. Applicant: City of Central Point
Community Planner Connie Clune presented a draft code amendment for the R-2
zoning district to Commissioners which would add text allowing for development
of properties located in any R-2 district to TOD-LMR (Transit Oriented
Development — Low Mix Residential) standards. The primary uses and density
standards for both districts are very similar, Ms. Clune explained, and the
Planning Commission Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 3
proposed text addition would provide options for a property owner. The basic
differences between the R-2 district and the TOD-LMR district are their design
options. Ms. Clune stated that the adoption of the new language would provide
better options for market conditions.
Community Development Director Tom Humphrey said that there are some older
areas of town that would benefit from these options and provide better results.
Don Burt affirmed that the code amendment would provide more flexibility in
existing neighborhoods to create a better product. In some instances, the outcome
would be better than just R-2 standards could provide.
The public hearing was then opened.
A resident on Beebe Road came forward and requested clarification from staff on
some of the design standards in the TOD that might be different from those in the
R-2 district. Staff responded to the questions raised.
The public portion of the hearing was then closed.
Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution No. 790 forwarding a
favorable recommendation to the City Council to consider amendments to
the Municipal Code Title 17 Section 17.24, R-2, Residential Two-Family
District. Craig Nelson, Sr. seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Schmeusser,
yes; Van Voorhees, yes; Nelson, yes; Harrison, yes; Oliver, yes; Szczesniak, yes.
Motion passed.
VII. DISCUSSION
Rogue Valley Recovery Homes—Annual Update
Community Planner Connie Clune presented an update to the Planning Commission on
the status of the Rogue Valley Recovery Home located at 134 Laurel Street which was
allowed by a conditional use permit approved in 2011. Ms. Clune reported that the home
was clean and well-maintained, and no calls or complaints had been received on the
home.
Chairman Piland said that he appreciated the follow up.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Planning Commission Minutes
February 5, 2013
Page 4
Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Tim Schmeusser
seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the February 5, 2013 Planning Commission meeting were
approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of
, 2013.
Planning Commission Chair
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2013
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:05 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Susan Szczesniak, Tom Van
Voorhees, and Kay Harrison were present. Craig Nelson was not present during
roll call. Tim Schmeusser was absent.
Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director,
Don Burt, Planning Manager; Connie Clune, Community Planner; and Didi
Thomas, Planning Secretary.
III. CORRESPONDENCE —None
IV. MINUTES
Mike Oliver made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 5, 2013
Planning Commission study session. Kay Harrison seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Oliver, yes; Szczesniak, yes; Van Voorhees, yes; Harrison, yes.
Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES—None
VI. BUSINESS
A. Comprehensive Plan 2013 Economic Element, File No. 13010. A public
hearing to consider a resolution forwarding a favorable recommendation to the
City Council to approve the City of Central Point Economic Element.
Applicant: City of Central Point
There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose.
Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director, explained that the Economic
Element was one of several elements in the City's comprehensive plan.
Commissioner Craig Nelson arrived at 6:10 p.m.
Mr. Humphrey said that prior to an expansion of the City's Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB), the City must demonstrate the need for additional land. The
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 2
components of the proposed Economic Element will substantiate and ensure
adequate land and appropriate sites for growth over the next 20 years.
Mr. Humphrey reviewed national trends and how these trends affect local
economies and consequently the need for regional competitiveness in those
categories that are more prominent in the Rogue Valley. Median wages and
employment in Oregon were compared with those in Central Point.
Emerging businesses going forward will rely on the trucking and transportation
industries to provide jobs. Additional land is needed to attract this industry and
others with larger employment bases. In addition, Mr. Humphrey expressed the
need for more vacant and available buildings which would enable existing
businesses and home occupations to expand and attract new businesses as well.
Growth rate and land demands were reviewed by Mr. Humphrey along with
estimates for future retail and office and industrial needs. Specialty foods were
mentioned as an additional business sector likely to grow at a rapid rate.
Don Burt, Planning Manager, pointed out that following a Citizens Advisory
Committee review of the Element, additions were made in the area of education.
Many policies were eliminated from the original Element presented due to
redundancy. Policies, Mr. Burt said, should be flexible. Land and infrastructure
need to be in place to take advantage of opportunities as they occur.
The public hearing was opened and as no one came forward to speak, the public
hearing was then closed.
Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to approve Resolution No. 791
forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council to approve the
City of Central Point Economic Element. Susan Szczesniak seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL: Szczesniak, yes; Van Voorhees, yes; Nelson, yes;
Harrison, yes; Oliver, yes. Motion passed.
VII. DISCUSSION
Central PointJackson County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement
Tom Humphrey explained that at the time of the approval of the City's original
comprehensive plan, an agreement was entered into with Jackson County for
management of the Seven Oak Interchange as an area of mutual planning concern.
Before the City can expand its Urban Growth Boundary into any of the Urban Reserve
areas, it has to address the Gibbon/Forest Acres as a second area of mutual planning
concern. Staff recommends amending the City/County agreement to include
Gibbon/Forest acres and that the Expo property also be designated an Area of Mutual
Planning Commission Minutes
May 7, 2013
Page 3
Planning concern. The possible inclusion of the Expo property as an Urban Reserve Area
will be considered at a later time.
Commissioner Kay Harrison suggested that each area have a separate agreement as they
are different areas with distinctly different problems, needs and opportunities. Tom
Humphrey said that he would take these comments to the County for further discussion.
Don Burt suggested that each property be listed specifically under definitions. Mr.
Humphrey reiterated that the agreement presented was just a rough draft which would be
refined based on discussions that he will have with the County and then get a plan
amendment moving.
There was general consensus amongst commissioners to proceed with a plan amendment.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Craig Nelson seconded
the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the May 7, 2013 Planning Commission meeting were approved
by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of
2013.
Planning Commission Chair
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO GRAY COURT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
ary.,
City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL Community Development
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 POINT Tom Humphrey, AICP,
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 ��
Oregon Community Development Director
www.centralpointoregon.gov R
STAFF REPORT
July 2, 2013
AGENDA ITEM: FILE NO. 06060-1 PUD Modification
Consideration of a major modification to Grey Court, a twenty-four(24) lot residential Planned Unit
Development. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 11A, Tax Lots
1500 through 1525. The project site is within the R-3 Residential Multiple-Family zoning district.
Applicant: Scott Rosendahl; Agent: Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, Planning Manager
Background:
On May 2, 2006 Grey Court was approved by the Planning Commission as a planned unit development
(Resolution No. 693) in accordance with Section 17.68 Planned Unit Development for twenty-four attached
single-family dwellings. The Planning Commission's approval was appealed to the City Council. The
primary objection for the appeal was the three-story height of the proposed homes.
On August 11, 2006 the City Council (Resolution No. 1117)upheld the Planning Commission's decision.
On June 10, 2008 the final plat for Grey Court was approved and recorded. With the exception of street
lights all public improvements have been completed and accepted by the City. Since final plat approval
none of the lots have been sold, nor have any of the lots been developed. The project remains under the
ownership of a single entity, Scott Rosendahl.
General Project Description:
At this time the applicant is requesting modifications to the PUD allowing for changes in the original project
design consistent with TOD MMR development standards as permitted in Section 17.28.050(B). The design
changes are intended to improve both appearance and marketability. The number and size of the platted lots
will not change. The proposed changes are:
I. Architectural
a. The original building design was based on a three-story single-family attached dwelling
having a two-car garage on the ground floor, with parking (private) for two additional
vehicles in the driveway. The three-story floor plan has proven difficult to market and it is
the applicant's intent to replace the three-story design with a two-story design(Attachments
B-3 through B-20). The two-story design will have a single car garage, with parking for one
additional vehicle in the driveway, meeting the 2 space total per CPMC 17.65, Table 3.
Page 1 of 4
The proposed modification uses three exterior architectural designs that can be used in
combination. The floor plan and square footage for each alternative remains the same (1,410
sq. ft. living area plus garage). The site plan is illustrative only in that it allows at the
applicant the discretion to interchange design options.
b. It is also proposed that the original condition prohibiting second story rear elevation windows
be eliminated. The elimination of this condition is necessary to comply with building code
standards.
2. Site Plan
a. Parking. As initially designed each dwelling unit had two covered parking spaces as required
(Section 17.64.040(A)(1). The only off-street parking(beyond required minimum) was in the
driveway of the individual lots (2 private use spaces per lot, 48 spaces total). Because of the
narrow lot width, driveway aprons, and the minimum street section (width), on-street parking
is not a possibility. Consequently, there are no common use(public)parking spaces in the
currently approved site design.
With the proposed modifications the number of parking spaces on each lot has been reduced
from 4 spaces to the required 2 spaces. Of the two required
parking spaces one is in the garage and the other is in the
driveway; which is permitted per Section 17.65.050(F)(3). a= "
z
The proposed reduction in off-street parking meets the minimum
requirement for each dwelling unit, but does not allow for guest
parking. The TOD and R-1 standards are silent on guest parking ,a"
r.zt requirements for single-family and duplex dwellings. However,
for common use (guest)parking the applicant has added twenty-
one(21) common use parking spaces (Attachment "B-1" and n - mj
"B-2"). To determine adequacy of guest parking Staff relied on o
Section 17.64.040, which for multiple-family dwellings would "" , ;
require a minimum of 6 parking spaces dedicated for guest use f r .m.
(one space for every four dwelling units). The proposed 21 guest °® .. a
spaces exceed the standard for multiple-family and should be
adequate to serve guest parking needs. ® � „9
b. Rear Yard Set Back. Increase the rear yard setback from 10 ft. to „3
15 ft. Under TOD MMR standards the minimum rear yard
setback is 15 feet (CPMC 17.65.050, Table 2). ro`t
c. Open Space. Although not applicable the TOD MMR standards .��.
for park and open space would require a minimum of 9,600 sq.
ft. The approved PUD had a total of 4,695.6 sq. ft. of combined
open space in two parcels (Tract "A" and Tract`B"), neither of which offered meaningful
useable open space. It was originally proposed that Tract`B"be improved as a small play
Page 2 of 4
area(swings, slide, etc.). At the time of approval there were no minimum open space
requirements for a PUD.
The applicant proposes to replace the mini-park improvements on Tract `B" with additional
common off-street parking, with the remainder of Tract `B"being landscaped (Attachment
"B-2"). Tract`B"measures approximately 2,600 sq. ft. in area, is triangular in shape, and has
minimal value for useable open space use. As part of the PUD it is proposed that the
minimum open space area be revised for use as common use off-street parking.
d. Modification of the Turn-Around. Grey Court is currently served by a typical cul-de-sac
turnaround. It is proposed that the current turnaround be re-configured for use as both a turn-
around (hammerhead) and off-street parking, allowing vehicles to turn-around within the
proposed parking area. The proposed turnaround design is acceptable to Fire District No. 3.
Re-configuration of the cul-de-sac will require vacation of part of the right-of-way, removing
the parking from the public maintenance to private maintenance as part of Tract"A".
ISSUES:
Because the project is currently platted the applicant has the right to sell and develop each lot, but only in
accordance with the approved PUD. As proposed the modifications are compliant with the minimum
requirements for development in the R-3 district and the TOD MMR.
FINDINGS:
Subject to conditions, the application can be found to meet the Type III Major Modification criteria and the
PUD amendment requirements (See Attachment "A"—Applicant's Findings and Attachment"D"— Staff
Findings of Fact).
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
1) Conditions as listed by the Central Point Public Works Staff Report (Attachment A) dated May 17,
2013.
1. Vacation of Public Right-of-Way: Prior to issuance of any residential building permits, or
construction of the private parking lots currently located within the public right-of-way the
Developer shall vacate the right-of-way in accordance with the vacation request (File No. 06060-2).
2. Street Lights: Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for construction of any residential building
installation of the street lights shall be completed per previously approved engineered plans.
3. Private Parking Maintenance: Prior to the sale of any lot and the issuance of a building permit for the
construction of any residential building, construction of the common parking lots shall be completed
and the CC&Rs amended and approved by the City establishing provisions for the use and continued
maintenance of the proposed private parking areas.
2) Planning Department conditions of approval.
a. Prior to the sale of any lot the following shall be completed:
i. Front Yard Landscaping and Maintenance: the CC&Rs shall be amended and
approved by the City establishing the landscape plan per(Attachment B-2) as the
Page 3 of 4
minimum front yard and common area landscape requirement, and establishing
provisions for the continued and mandatory maintenance of the front yard and
common area landscaping. Evidence of recordation of the CC&Rs must be submitted
to the Planning Department.
ii. Submit a revised site plan and landscape plan the flips the building footprint on Lot
24 to allow a landscape buffer between the dwelling unit on Lot 24 and the common
parking area to the north.
iii. Right-of-Way Vacation: This application to modify the Grey Court PUD is subject to
approval of the vacation of parts of Grey Court as indicated in the Vacation
Application 06060-2.
iv. Tract A & Lot 24 Adjustment—Tract A shall be adjusted to include the three(3) off-
street parking spaces located at the northeast end of Grey Court. As an alternative a
common area parking easement on Lot 24 would be acceptable.
v. Exterior HVAC units must have a not to exceed noise rating of 70db or lower.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment "A"- Applicant's Findings date May 17, 2013
Attachment "B-1"through"B-20", Site Plan and Architectural Elevations
Attachment "C"- Public Works Staff Report
Attachment "D"— Staff Findings of Fact
ACTION:
Consideration of Resolution No. 2013-
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 2013-
Page 4 of 4
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION )
TO MODIFY APPROVED PLANS FOR ) FINDINGS OF FACT
GRAY COURT PUD FILE NO.06060 ) AND
APPLICANT: SCOTT ROSENDAHL ) CONCLUSTIONS OF LAW
AGENT: SCOTT SINNER CONSULTING, INC. )
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Applicant:
Scott Rosendahl
23300 E Evans Creek Rd
White City, OR 97502
scottr @cvberpc.com
Agent:
Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.
4401 San Juan Dr. Suite G
Medford, OR 97504
scottsinner@vahoo.com
Affected Property:
372W11A Gray Court PUD
500 through 545 Gray Court
Central Point, OR 97502
Narrative:
This application is a request to modify an approved Planned Unit Development (PUD)
Plan. The applicant completed a foreclosure against on the original developer of the
Gray Court PUD approved by the City of Central Point Planning Commission as File
Number 06060.
The public hearing for the PUD was strongly contested by the residents of adjoining
properties, primarily due to the massing of the 3 story buildings and lack of architectural
creativity in the building designs. The applicant has prepared this application to modify
an approval to address the concerns of the neighbors and improve esthetics and appeal
of the project.
This application is submitted concurrently with an application for the vacation of public
right of way, and the approval of this application, by the Planning Commission, is
dependent on the approval of the Vacation by the City Council. In the event the vacation
application is not approved,this application will not be able to be approved.
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 1 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Gray Court PUD is currently approved, fully entitled, and ready to submit for
building permits for the construction of the buildings on the lots. The applicant strongly
supports the approval of this application, however in the event this application is
denied,the existing approval will still be valid and in full effect.
The existing approved development has a 3 story 35 foot tall building approved for each
lot in the PUD. There are 11 two unit attached structures and 1 single family detached
structure, each on a separate lot for a total of 23 units to be constructed. Tax lot 1500 is
currently developed with the original single family dwelling on the parent property and
is excluded from the modification of the PUD.
The approved PUD relied heavily on automobiles as the primary mode of transportation.
The dwelling units had a double car garage and an additional two uncovered parking
spaces for a total of four parking spaces per dwelling unit, double the required parking
in the Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC).
This application for the modification of an approved plan is presented to comply with
the development standards of a Transit Oriented District (TOD) identified on Table 2 of
section 17.65.050 of the CPMC. The approval of the proposed modifications will
improve the compatibility of this development with other development in the vicinity.
The dwelling units are proposed as a viable and practical home ownership opportunity
for either first time home buyers or people interested in downsizing and improving their
proximity to transit routes and urban services. The dwelling units proposed with this
application are two story, 3 bedroom units with approximately 1,400 square feet.
This is compact urban development and this is not well suited for residents with several
accessory vehicles or towable recreation vehicles seeking storage on site. This
development is designed to be a compact, attractive and affordable residence close to
urban services and amenities with low maintenance requirements.
The owners in this development will be members of a Home Owners Association (HOA)
and will be assessed HOA fees for the perpetual care and maintenance of the common
facilities. The HOA will contract for the landscape maintenance of the common areas
and the private areas of the front yards to assure a pleasant, walkable neighborhood.
The existing approved plans for this development provided limited architectural variety
and interest. There are two approved building types; a two unit 3 story building and a
one unit 3 story building, which is one half of the two unit plan.
The plans provided with this application to modify an approved plan utilize a common
interior floor plan for all dwelling units. A single car garage is provided with kitchen,
dining and living areas on the ground floor and bedrooms on the upper floor. The
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 2 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
application includes three configurations for the attached dwellings, garages together,
garages apart, and garages on the same side.
The elevations proposed include variety in roof types to allow hip or gable roofs. All
units include a front porch with railing and the siding on the front elevation can be
varied on each of the attached units to enhance curb appeal. Each dwelling unit will be
painted with a 3 color complementary paint scheme for, body, trim, and accent colors.
The color palate proposed for the dwellings will be neutral and earth tones.
The final plat for the PUD has been approved and recorded. The plat has established
easements for the attached single family dwellings. This application does not intend to
change the plat or the easement effecting the location of the common wall of the
dwellings on the lots. The only change to the plat is expected to be the absorption of the
existing cul de sac bulb into the common area of tax lot 1514 Tract A upon review and
approval by the City Council.
The right of way being proposed for vacation is the bulb of the existing cul de sac of
Gray Court. At the time of approval of the PUD, the 35' high, three story buildings
required the cul de sac for adequate fire protection and public safety. With the approval
of the proposed 2 story buildings, the public safety can be met with an approved fire
department hammerhead turnaround.
Upon approval of the Vacation application, the area of the bulb will be included in tax
lot 1514 which is Tract A of the common area of the PUD.The HOA is responsible for the
perpetual care and maintenance of the all common areas within the PUD.
The applicant has redesigned the area of the cul de sac to a common area parking area.
The parking area includes the dimensional requirements for the hammerhead turn
around within the drive aisle of the parking area for a very efficient use of urban land.
The City Public Works Staff and the Jackson County Fire District #3 Fire Marshal have
reviewed the proposed configuration and confirmed the design meets the Code
requirements and assure public safety.
This application includes the submission of three basic building configurations for
Planning Commission approval with the intent any of the three configurations may be
constructed on a given lot. The landscape plan submitted with this application
demonstrates the proposed landscaping for two configurations, garages together and
garages apart. The third configuration, garages on the same side, utilizes the same
concept submitted for site landscaping in the front of the dwellings.
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 3 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The approved plan provides a small play structure on tax lot 1525, Tract B of the
common area. In the pre application conference, staff strongly encouraged the
elimination of the structure and the conversion to additional parking. The proposed site
plan provides 3 parking spaces and an integrated landscape treatment of this area. The
perpetual care and maintenance of this area is provided by the HOA.
Description of the Building Types
The submittals included with this application for modification of an approved plan
include elevations and floor plans for three configurations of two unit dwellings.
The basic floor plan is presented in three configurations Duplex A places the garages
apart, Duplex B places the garages together and Duplex C places the garage on the same
side, either both garages on the left or both on the right.
Lit uvn m u.. �i I ,111:017-4P eel 7L m °o MO MO
'i -T g ism -T f ' r —�2 '
- E 11
11111 11110 vea�. ��
St m
r1ii1 I 411116
.� q 1- _so
11511\ pNl 1111 R IY1�
� tlll 1
/��L 11111 � �reeraeerf uenumra __-.Yhpl
� ]fdA1W� ..... a I
rl
cizesm
II-1 oak.FLoon
_a... SeR MIA Fl..,� mA.., Ma so.R.
MAN FLOW
All buildings share the same basic floor plan
=b r with a single car garage, living room kitchen,
' �� -„rk - I .4i ----r- eating area and powder room on the first
'}.
.. floor and 3 bedroom and 2 bathrooms on Apt -s _ the second floor.
AMMO
LUIS '..
��°� 111111) -t _ ' Each dwelling unit has the garage recessed
I 1 L.igc 5' from the front of the living space and
�"` includes a 5' x 14'6" covered porch.
t—
e
M WM ruce
rtinsw
_wRAArso
MIWELME
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 4 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The submittal also requests the approval of two roof types of hip roof or gable roof for
architectural variety and interest. Additional elevations and renderings are attached
submittals.
--
7 i . iii Mii �Ilnl IlliltlI IiiIIi I L� _ `,I '' BP 'tau 111&I 1161li in niiili HU
t
MQNHIP WITH DOUBLE rwa..E,rvaroINanrny.
MAIN HIP WrtH DOUBLE HIPS bnYiCa+91EWISntalmiGRBlE<.
It is the applicant's intent to submit these three building configurations and two roof
types for approval by the Planning Commission. The intent is to provide a level of
flexibility and architectural variety into the development by allowing a variety of
potential combinations of approved configurations on the lots.
As stated above, the original PUD approval was strongly contested by some adjoining
property owners. The minutes indicated a condition of approval to remove second story
windows completely, and limit third story windows to high sill windows to provide
privacy to adjoining property owners.
This application seeks to
remove the condition of = - -- = __
approval to prohibit rear facing -
second story windows. The ,
proposed IIII ' I
propoposed dww ellings eliminate 0 I
t
the third floor to reduce i
l
massing considerably. The rear l : f
setback is also increased from � 1 � �
the original 10' to the proposed — - - - -`- —
flLE MTEV0.T R GABLE EYE
15' rear setback. AWN GABLE WITH RPN M9LEDEYEBflOWS
All units are submitted as 3 bedroom units. The building code requires egress windows
for each bedroom. The outside bedrooms have the egress windows placed on the side
elevation, however the bedroom adjacent to the common wall must be placed on the
rear elevation.
The applicant asserts modifying the building to 2 stories, increasing the setbacks by 50%
and improving the architectural interest in the buildings is an acceptable solution for the
rear elevation.
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 5 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Approval Criteria
The Central Point Municipal Code (CPMC) provides the process and approval criteria for
the modification of an approved plan in section 17.09.This section identifies the type of
land use actions to be modified and also the threshold and procedures for Major and
Minor Modifications of approved plans.
The applicant completed a pre application conference with Staff to review the
requested modifications. The Community Director determined the proposed
modifications would be reviewed under the criteria for a Major Modification. The
relevant sections of the CPMC are included below.
17.09.100 Modifcations--Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an efficient process for modifying land
use decisions and approved development plans, in recognition of the cost and
complexity of land development and the need to conserve city resources. (Ord.
1874§2(part), 2006).
17.09.200 Modifications--Applicability.
A. This chapter applies to all development applications approved through the
provisions of this title, including:
1. Land use review approvals;
2. Site design review approvals;
3. Subdivisions, partitions, and property line adjustments;
4. Conditional use permits;
5. Planned unit developments; and
6. Conditions of approval on any of the above permit types.
B. This chapter does not apply to comprehensive plan amendments, land use
district changes, text amendments, annexations, or other permits not listed in
subsection A of this section. Any matter not identified in subsection A of this
section shall be changed through the applicable process for the initial approval of
such a matter.
C. When an application for a modification is complete, the community
development director shall review the proposed modification and determine
whether the modification is a major or minor modification and the process to be
used in processing the proposed modification, as described below. (Ord. 1874
§2(part), 2006).
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 6 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
17.09.300 Major modifications.
A. Major Modification Defined. The community development director shall
determine that a major modification(s) is required if one or more of the changes
listed below are proposed:
1. A change in land use;
2. An increase in density by more than ten percent, provided the resulting
density does not exceed that allowed by the land use district;
3. A change in setbacks or lot coverage by more than ten percent, provided
the resulting setback or lot coverage does not exceed that allowed by the
land use district;
4. A change in the type and/or location of accessways, drives or parking
areas affecting off-site traffic;
5. An increase in the floor area proposed for nonresidential use by more
than fifteen percent where previously specified;
6. A reduction of more than ten percent of the area reserved for common
open space; or
7. Change to a condition of approval, or a change similar to subsections
(A)(1) through (6) of this section, that could have a detrimental impact on
adjoining properties. The city planning official shall have discretion in
determining detrimental impacts warranting a major modification.
Findings of Fact Applicability
CPMC section 17.09.200 A describes the type of development subject to review by this
process. This application will request the modification of an approved PUD plan.
17.09.200 A (5) specifically identifies this process applying to the modification of a PUD.
17.09.200 C states the Community Development Director will review an application for
modification and determine whether an application is a major of minor modification.
The applicant completed a pre application conference to review the proposed
modifications and the Community Development Director determined the proposed
modifications are major modifications. This application has been prepared and
submitted under the criteria for a major revision.
17.09.300 describes the conditions applicable to a major modification:
.1. A change in land use;
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 7 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The land use approved in the Gray Court PUD is high density residential in the R-3
zoning district. The approval provided attached housing on individual tax lots allowing
for individual ownership of each dwelling unit. The modifications proposed will not
modify the high density residential use, and this application will not modify the land use.
2. An increase in density by more than ten percent, provided the resulting
density does not exceed that allowed by the land use district;
The approved PUD and subdivision plat resulted in a total of 26 tax lots. Tax lots 1500
segregated the original single family dwelling on the parent parcel from the balance of
the development. Tax lots 1514 and 1525 are identified as Tract A and Tract B and are
common areas within the PUD and will not be used for dwelling units.
The remaining 23 tax lots were approved for dwelling units and the approval of this
application for modification will not change number of lots used for dwelling units and
the density of the PUD will not be modified.
3. A change in setbacks or lot coverage by more than ten percent,
provided the resulting setback or lot coverage does not exceed that
allowed by the land use district;
Lot 1500 will not be modified with the approval of this application.
The remaining 23 lots containing dwelling units are typically 63.5' by 32'. The approved
plans for the dwelling units have a 22' x 43' footprint 946 square feet and 46% lot
coverage. The approved plans are 3 story buildings and have 10' side yard and rear yard
setbacks designed to comply with the CPMC at the time the application was submitted.
The modified plans have been developed to comply with the standards identified in
Table 2 of CPMC section 17.65.050. The proposed buildings have a footprint with the
covered porch of 909 square feet for 44% lot coverage. The proposed buildings are 2
story buildings instead of 3 stories and each building has 15' rear yard setback and a 5'
side yard setback to comply with the referenced section of the current CPMC.
4. A change in the type and/or location of accessways, drives or parking
areas affecting off-site traffic;
The applicant has submitted an application for the vacation of public right of way and
the approval of this application to modify plans is dependent on the approval of the
vacation application. The vacation of right of way will allow for the redesign of the
shared parking within the PUD.
The bulb of the existing cul de sac was required by the Oregon State Fire Code for
buildings over 30' in height. The proposed buildings are 2 stories and a maximum height
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 8 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
of 26'. At the proposed building height, a hammerhead turn around meets the
requirements for fire access and maintains public safety.
The bulb of the parking lot has been reconfigured to a parking area for shared parking
for the development. The approved plan promoted a dependence on automobiles for
transportation of the residents by providing 2 covered parking spaces and 2 uncovered
spaced per dwelling unit.This doubled the parking standards in the code and resulted in
the need for the 3 story buildings.
The proposed plan provides 1 covered and 1 uncovered parking space per dwelling unit
on each individual tax lot, and there are a total of 21 parking spaces in the common
areas for shared and visitor parking for the 23 dwelling units. The total parking provided
is 67 spaces and 2.9 spaces per dwelling unit.
The proposed redevelopment of parking in the development promotes multi modal
transportation opportunities for the residents. The overall height and mass of the
buildings as well as the rear setbacks are modified to promote a more compatible
development for the adjacent residents in the area.
5. An increase in the floor area proposed for nonresidential use by more
than fifteen percent where previously specified;
The approved PUD does not provide any nonresidential space, and none is proposed
with this application for modification of an approved plan.
6. A reduction of more than ten percent of the area reserved for common
open space;or
The approval of the application for the vacation of right of way will add approximately
4,965 square feet to tax lot 1514, Tract A of the common area of the development. The
uses for this area are parking and landscaped areas.
7 Change to a condition of approval, or a change similar to subsections
(A)(1) through (6)of this section, that could have a detrimental impact on
adjoining properties. The city planning official shall have discretion in
determining detrimental impacts warranting a major modification.
The application includes a request to change to a condition of approval. The approved
PUD included a condition to eliminate second story rear facing windows and use high
sills for the third story windows.
This application seeks to remove the condition of approval to prohibit rear facing
second story windows. The proposed dwellings eliminate the third floor to reduce
massing considerably. The rear setback is also increased from the original 10' to the
proposed 15' rear setback.
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 9 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
All units are submitted as 3 bedroom units. The building code requires egress windows
for each bedroom. The outside bedrooms have the egress windows placed on the side
elevation however the bedroom adjacent to the common wall must be placed on the
rear elevation.
The adjoining property on the east is in the R-3 zoning district and developed with two
story multifamily dwellings and second story windows facing Gray Court. The adjoining
properties on the west side of the development are within the Meadows PUD. These
single story dwellings are also within the R-3 zoning district.
The subject property and the adjoining properties are all within the R-3 zoning district,
are all developed, or proposed for development, with outright permitted uses for the
zoning district and there are no non permitted or conditional uses proposed. This
development an infill development at the densities described in the CPMC for the R-3
zoning designation as contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
The CPMC does not prohibit windows facing other developments. The CPMC does
encourage minimizing the impact of residential windows and privacy of adjoining
property owners, and the design of the proposed building and siting standards reflect
that effort.
The applicant asserts modifying the building to 2 stories, increasing the setbacks by 50%
and improving the architectural interest in the buildings is an acceptable solution for the
rear elevation and requests the removal of the condition.
Conclusions of Law
The Planning Commission can conclude the application meets the applicability
standards for modification and the modifications are considered major
modifications.
Approval Criteria
B. Major Modification Applications;Approval Criteria. An applicant may request
a major modification using a Type II or Type ill review procedure, as follows:
1. Upon the community development director determining that the
proposed modification is a major modification, the applicant shall submit
an application form,filing fee and narrative, and a site plan using the same
plan format as in the original approval. The community development
director may require other relevant information, as necessary, to evaluate
the request.
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 10 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2. The application shall be subject to the same review procedure(Type ll or
Ill), decision-making body, and approval criteria used for the initial project
approval, except that adding a conditional use to an approved project shall
be reviewed using a Type Ill procedure.
3. The scope of review shall be limited to the modification request. For
example, a request to modify a parking lot shall require site design review
only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access,
circulation, pathways, lighting, trees, and landscaping. Notice shall be
provided in accordance with the applicable notice requirements for Type I1
or Type Ill procedures.
4. The decision-making body shall approve, deny, or approve with
conditions an application for major modification based on written findings
on the criteria. (Ord. 1874 §2(part), 2006).
Findings of Fact
1. Upon the community development director determining that the
proposed modification is a major modification, the applicant shall submit
an application form,filing fee and narrative, and a site plan using the same
plan format as in the original approval. The community development
director may require other relevant information, as necessary, to evaluate
the request.
The Community Development Director determined in the pre application conference for
this project the proposed modifications are considered major modifications.
The City has developed an application for the modification of an approved plan which is
included with the following submittals:
1. Application Form
2. Major Plan Amendment Application fee $2,247.00
3. Legal Description for Gray Court PUD
4. Findings of Fact
5. Site Plan
6. Landscape Plan with conceptual irrigation plan
7. Approved building elevations
8. Proposed building elevations
9. Proposed building floor plans
10. Agent authorization by Owner
11. Mailing Labels for 100' notice area
12. Planning Commission Resolution No. 739
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 11 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
2. The application shall be subject to the same review procedure(Type it or
ill), decision-making body, and approval criteria used for the initial project
approval, except that adding a conditional use to an approved project shall
be reviewed using a Type Ill procedure.
The application will be a major revision subject to a Type III procedure.
3. The scope of review shall be limited to the modification request. For
example, a request to modify a parking lot shall require site design review
only for the proposed parking lot and any changes to associated access,
circulation, pathways, lighting, trees, and landscaping. Notice shall be
provided in accordance with the applicable notice requirements for Type II
or Type Ill procedures.
The modifications requested with this application are as follows:
1. Utilize the variations of the 2 story buildings as submitted to replace the
approved 3 story buildings.
2. Utilize the setbacks allowed in Table 2 of CPMC section 17.65.050
3. Provide 1 covered and 1 uncovered parking space per lot for each new building
and provide 21 shared or visitor spaces as indicated on sheet C-1 for a total of 67
spaces.
4. Configure the area to be vacated from the cul de sac bulb to common area with
parking and landscaping as indicated on the submittals.
5. Remove the play structure on Tract B of the common area and replace with
parking and landscaping per plan.
6. Remove the condition for no windows on the rear elevation of the second
stories.
This application is dependent, and contingent, on the approval of the applicant's
vacation of public right of way application submitted concurrently with this application.
The applicant is currently fully entitled to build an approved PUD.
The Planning Commission is the approving authority for an application for modification
of an approved plan. The Planning Commission will review the application for a vacation
of right of way and provide a recommendation for the approving authority, the City
Council.
The applicant has submitted both applications at the same time to allow both approving
authorities the opportunity to review the applications in proper context. In the event
this application to modify an approved plan is denied, the applicant will withdraw the
application for a vacation of right of way and the project will continue to be approved
and entitled in the current form based on Planning Commission Resolution No. 739 and
File No. 06060.
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 12 of 13
MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PLANS FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
4. The decision-making body shall approve, deny, or approve with
conditions an application for major modification based on written findings
on the criteria. (Ord. 1874§2(part), 2006).
Good, we want an approval...
Summary and Conclusions
The applicant has submitted a complete application with the proper application fee. The
requested modifications are consistent with the relevant approval criteria contained in
the Central Point Municipal Code.
The proposed modifications address issues raised in the original PUD approval for the
development. The modifications are submitted to comply with the current design
standards and will improve compatibility of this development with existing development
in the vicinity.
The approval of the requested modifications will enhance the architectural and
aesthetic interest in this development and provide a viable home ownership
opportunity for the intended residents.
On behalf of the applicant I respectfully request the approval of this request for this
application to modify an approved plan.
Scott Sinner, President
Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc.
Rosendahl Revised Approval Findings of Fact Scott Sinner Consulting, Inc. 541-772-1494 Page 13 of 13
-I ' ll q1 i
__ 1 ��
' 1 1 I
�� ' ;;I.q \
t '
.
o \� ,\
g irspH-tl Q\"
n
1 \ -\
.s� 1 tig
■1�
��. \`
■1\`N \\J
m \N
...\\\
1___., ,, ym,N ,
i ,
. __
_:___i
, _
. .
61 MODIFIED SITE PLAN:•4\ I I Iti IDVDIPPIStl!'A
GRAY COURT PUD \ -
-
a' CENTRAL POINT, OREGON key a'.# ................ ,r _.
gg$$ ygyg eyyepp g$ g PI 9§ §
,'.isiy4Aa3 @i iff riallik� �itarli ;Ph iiis i§'S ti8giai PI 'i ,lgiia lII,I 'd a8$ ti a 041
ae 3 §ii ap a i 1 alY° Ya2�6i£ax l,a Ya 1 ilil ! iiiIi �8aitha $ kg $0a€a pap'.
§ sq a°°a a a$ Yi z a # ld $n pY $ _
: ?tc $ e $ H $ d a OH $ H °Y ga
6 0 0110I 10cliBs 3�s Ca pip 0 iq h a s dig® 7 :a
61 l i d Y q a , i'la� e 3 ��e d3 d�Y �Tp �
1 sBai3iii t � �i�oR� i i i; iii iaw l F iii i ag a' ri '1d1 €; aie ga4 ilafiti1 i$ G a # , aie 1 ,0 ; f ! i : f&
p } y i 9 i g 0 5I3a a I §a lalaeIla IaiI i i � � a`�' e € 8
iy q °s a a 'd # ',
t
..
„c • • t73 •l • O b .,'• ( `, f '� t �x .,
i oa
P i jfJI' iii 1 , t i3 €P 1111 i yl g Y ' 3f ' d� Wilda" 3dgg��
€ $d a \ ti 3� 9§� 1 3i Fih
♦ H 0 2
qw i� 3ii�i i i� s� i mi )vvv� vy If � e 3i$ xa 3
• � ail 0 deli I II9Ihij a vyvv I d`y ` °ii, aH I,;,
$ V A \,„ A $p 3i n �l.
1 L\..
bp @7@ 8ailii kY 1 vy\ �A 7{ 1 ,Y�#Q .i• aagE$H �a a tX
` A 0 - VvA vV as \ vA ikl:.7 i� $
reoaa rerrrrr arse \\\\41, i !1 $7 i gR
aas°gaSSa $ appv c. v A 3
\ a iia�M u
vmv vv \fv4
\\\F * t a
�3 % \v
i °sb�pp! .r y v vA
6
\
\V Si vv ) AA . t
'IMP gg �.• VAv a ,\'\\\\\\\.\\,•\\:i ' °fidlJa Ili 3
A ; € 31i�aia�ii�h! Li g@ \\�\\\C T ' \\ .. i}d .
p¢fll!Wfttj a , J11:1:k•li °'i»a= a rIP
I �� �i li 32v l of I, \v�A� i �:i'o vA, •••
§} l i e�ia
w pa gile aa1e°Ji } II::
S ig Iiiiiciiiii g k•9s' $a \ x k\\\_\ l e 3 £e� y n tl i3a $fa ai i \\ �f \\ 3 A
a y v
„ .
twt IS
.••.. 0
gt
. .t //
o iP 1 T1 II I I I GRAY COURT PUD Madara Design Inc � �
L qh ! -I GRAY COURT msauw.F•w Aa a�„�
g M1 g Central Pont Or 97502
F CENTRAL POINT,OREGON 97502 floe, C,,�
-I mm,�s�v.n�� "�3'c�rr
ATTACHMENT "C"
Public Works Department urn(
CENTRAL Matt Samitore, Director
POINT
Oregon
PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT
May 29,2013
AGENDA ITEM:
File No. 06060-1 Grey Court PUD Revisions
Zoning: R-2, Single Family Zoning District
Traffic:
No traffic study is warranted for this modification as the number of parcels is not changing.
Issues:
The previous developer did not finish all the public improvements, as the street lights were never installed.
Additionally, for the purpose of this request the developer must vacate the right-of-way that is currently the round-
about prior to construction of the hammerhead turn around and private parking lots. The proposed private parking
lots will not be public owned or maintained. A home owners association needs to be established for long term
maintenance of the facilities.
Existing Infrastructure:
Water: There is a n 8"water in Gray Court
Streets: Gray Court is a residential lane with no parking allowed on either side.
Storm Water: There is an existing 12" line in Gray Court.
Conditions of Approval:
1. Vacation of Public Right-of-way. —Prior to construction of the proposed hammerhead turn-around and
private parking lots the Developer shall vacate the right-of-way in accordance with the the vacation request
(File No. 06060-2) .
2. Street Lights—Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any residential building
installation of the street lights shall be completed per previously approved engineered plans.
3. Private Parking Lot Maintenance—Prior to the sale of any lot and the issuance of a building permit for the
construction of any residential building the CC&Rs need to be amended and approved by the City
establishing provisions for the continued maintenance of the proposed private parking lots abutting Grey
Court.
140 South 3rd Street • Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3321 •Fax 541.664.6384
BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FOR THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON
IN THE MATTER OF A MAJOR ) FINDINGS OF FACT AND
AMENDMENT TO GREY COURT PUD,A ) CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WITHIN )
THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT,OREGON ) July 2,2013
Introduction
The applicant is requesting a modification of the previously approved and platted Grey Court
Planned Unit Development,a twenty-four lot residential subdivision. In Attachment"A"the
applicant describes the proposed modifications.Attachments"B-1 through B-20" further illustrate
the changes proposed to the Grey Court PUD.The requested modifications are classified as a Major
Modification and are subject to the provisions of Section 17.09.300.The modifications are further
subject to compliance with 17.68.040,Criteria to Grant or Deny a PUD,and 17.68.070,Control of a
PUD during and after Completion. The applicant,as provided in Section 17.28.050(B), Performance
Standards,has elected to use the more restrictive TOD-MMR standards in 17.65.
The following findings address each of the standards and criteria noted as applies to the proposed
modification.
Chapter 17.09.300 Major Modifications
A. Major Modification Defined.The community development director shall determine that a major
modification(s) is required if one or more of the changes listed below are proposed:
Section 17.09.300(A)(1)A change in land use.
Finding 17.09.300(A)(1): The proposed modification does include a minor modification to
the previously approved land uses in the form of new off-street parking on Tract "and Tract
Conclusion 17.09.300(A)(1): The proposed modification is considered a major modification.
Section 17.09.300(A)(2)An increase in density by more than ten percent,provided the resulting
density does not exceed that allowed by the land use district.
Finding 17.09.300(A)(2): The proposed modification does not increase the density beyond
that originally approved.
Conclusion 17.09.300(A)(2): The proposed modification is not considered a major
modification.
Section 17.09.300(A)(3)A change in setbacks or lot coverage by more than ten percent, provided
the resulting setbacks or lot coverage does not exceed that allowed by the land use district.
Finding 17.09.300(A)(3): The proposed modification increases the prior rear yard setback
from 10 feet to 15 feet. This modification is considered a change in the rear yard setback in
excess of 10%. Although the proposed rear yard setback change is a favorable change, it is a
change that exceeds the minimum required set back. There are no changes to the coverage
that exceed the minimum required coverage.
Conclusion 17.09.300(A)(3): The proposed 15 foot rear yard setback is a change that
exceeds the minimum allowed in the R-3 district and as such the modification is considered
major.
Section 17.09.300(A)(4)A change in the type and/or location of accessways, drives or parking
areas affecting off-site traffic.
Finding 17.09.300(A)(4): The proposed modification does not alter accessways, drives, or
parking that would affect off-site traffic.
Conclusion 17.09.300(A)(4): The proposed modification is not considered a major
modification.
Section 17.09.300(A)(5)An increase in the floor area proposed for nonresidential use by more
than fifteen percent where previously specified.
Finding 17.09.300(A)(5): The proposed modification does include any nonresidential uses..
Conclusion 17.09.300(A)(5): The proposed modification is not considered a major
modification.
Section 17.09.300(A)(6)A reduction of more than ten percent of the area reserved for common
open space.
Finding 17.09.300(A)(6): The proposed modification does reduce the area reserved for
common open space through the inclusion of three off-street parking spaces on Tract"B
which was previously set aside as open space.
Conclusion 17.09.300(A)(6): The proposed modification is not considered a major
modification.
Section 17.09.300(A)(7) Change to a condition of approval,or a change similar to subsections
(A)(1)through (6) of this section,that could have a detrimental impact on adjoining properties.
Finding 17.09.300(A)(7): The original approval of the Grey Court PUD was appealed to the
City Council by the abutting neighbors. The appeal was primarily focused on the height(three
stories)and massing of the proposed residential structures. The City Council denied the appeal.
In consideration of the neighborhoods concern it was the position of the community
development director that based on a strict interpretation of the Major Modification criteria
the proposal could be classified as a Major Modification.
Conclusion 17.09.300(4)(7): The proposed modification meets the criteria in Section
17.09.300(A)(1 &3).
Section 17.09.300(8) Major Modification Approval Criteria.
Section 17.09.300(B)(1) Upon the community development director determining that the
proposed modification is a major modification,the applicant shall submit an application form, filing
fee and narrative,and a site plan using the same plan format as in the original approval. The
community development director may require other relevant information, as necessary,to evaluate
the request.
Finding 17.09.300(8)(1): The community development director, as noted in the Findings
dated July2,2013,has determined that the proposed modifications are considered major.
Conclusion 17.09.300(B)(1):Consistent,
Section 17.09.300(B)(2) The application shall be subject to the same review procedure (Type iI or
III),decision-making body, and approval criteria used for the initial project approval, except that
adding a conditional use to an approved project shall be reviewed using a Type III procedure.
Finding 17.09.300(8)(2): The initial consideration of the Grey Court PUD was as a Type III
application with approval by the Planning Commission. The proposed modification is also
being treated as a Type III application before the Planning Commission.
Conclusion 17.09.300(B)(2):Consistent.
Section 17.09.300(B)(3) The scope of review shall be limited to the modification request
Finding 17.09.300(B)(3): The review of the proposed modification has been limited to the
changes in the PUD and as further evidenced in the Findings dated July 2,2013.
Conclusion 17.09.300(B)(3):Consistent.
Section 17.09.300(8)(4)The decision-making body shall approve,deny,or approve with
conditions an application for major modification based on written findings on the criteria.
Finding 17.09.300(B)(4): The Planning Commission,per the adopted resolution,
demonstrates that it has reviewed the proposed modification and has rendered a decision
based on the Findings dated July 2,2013 and the Staff Report dated July 2,2013.
Conclusion 17.09.300(8)(4): Consistent.
601. 17.68.040 Criteria to grant or deny a PUD. A PUD shall be
permitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards
and procedures of this chapter. In the case of a use existing
prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
chapter, and classified in this chapter as a PUD, a change in the
use or in lot area, or an alteration of structure, shall conform
with the requirements for PUD use. To approve or deny a PUD,
the planning commission shall find whether or not the standards
of this chapter, including the following criteria, are either met,
can be met by observance of conditions, or are not applicable.
A.That the development of a harmonious,integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal
requirements of this title;
Finding 17.68.040(A): The proposed modification does not require any exceptions to zoning
•
standards. it is noted that the original approved plans included 2,614 sq.ft. in Tract"8"as
useable improved open space. The amount of square footage dedicated for open space was
based solely on what was leftover and had no relationship to any minimum code requirement,
since there was no such requirement. The PUD standards(Section 17.68.110)only required
that if there were "open areas"that they meet prescribed criteria, which;based on approval of
the PUD the applicant successfully demonstrated.At this time the applicant is requesting the
play area in Tract"B"be eliminated in lieu of additional off-street parking. Since minimum
requirements for open space were not initially required the applicant's request to modify the
open space use through elimination of the play does not conflict with any of the City's zoning
standards.
Conclusion 17.68.040(A):Consistent
B.The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan,the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and other applicable policies of the city;
Finding 17.68.040(B): The proposed modification does not alter the density or use of the
property beyond what was initially approved,and as such remains consistent with
comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance.
Conclusion 17.68.040(8):Consistent
C.The location,size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse
impact on the livability,value or appropriate development of the surrounding area;
Finding 17.68.040(C): The proposed modification, through reduction in the number offloors
and increased rear yard setbacks, improves the project's overall relationship to the
surrounding neighborhoods.
Conclusion 17.68.040(C):Consistent
D.That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry out the
proposed project,that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of
the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction within a
reasonable time as determined by the commission;
Finding 17.68.040(D): The proposed modification does not alter the applicant's ability to
finance the project. The proposed modification does improve the project's marketability
through the replacement of the three-story floor plan with a two-story plan.
Conclusion 17.68.040(D);Consistent.
E.That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated
by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances,exits, internal traffic circulation and
parking;
Finding 17.68.040(E): The proposed modification does not affect or otherwise alter the
traffic characteristics of the originally approved plan.
Conclusion 17.68.040(E);Consistent.
F.That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate
commercial facilities of the type proposed;
Finding 17,68.040(F): The proposed modification,as with the originally approved plan,does
not include any commercial uses.
Conclusion 17.68.040(F):Not applicable.
G.That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate
provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage;
Finding 17.68.040(G); The proposed modification,as with the originally approved plan, does
not include any industrial uses.
Conclusion 17.68.040(G):Not applicable.
H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines,wooded cover and rough
terrain,if these are present;
Finding 17.68.040(H): The proposed modification,as with the originally approved plan,does
not include any natural features considered worth saving.
Conclusion 17.68.040(H):Not applicable.
I.The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area;
Finding 17.68.040(1): The proposed modification, through the replacement of the three-story
units with two-story units and the increase in the rearyard setback from 10 feet to 15 feet, will
improve its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood beyond that of the originally
approved plan.
Conclusion 17.68.040(1):Consistent.
J.The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the
land. (Ord. 1615§67, 1989).
Finding 17.68.040Q): The proposed modification does not affect the need,or use of public
facilities beyond that which was originally approved.
Conclusion 17.68.040a):Not applicable.
602. 17.68.070 Control of the PUD during and after completion.
If the city finds evidence of a major deviation from the
preliminary or final development plan, it shall advise the
applicant to submit an application to the planning commission
for amendment to the planned unit development pursuant to
Chapter 17.09. An amendment shall be considered in the same
manner as an original application.
A. The building official, in issuing a certificate of completion of the planned unit development,shall
note the issuance on the recorded final development plan.
Finding 17.68.070(A):No building permits have been issued to date for any of the lots in Grey
Court PUD.
Conclusion 17.68.070(A):Not applicable at this time.
B.After the certificate of completion has been issued,the use of the land and the construction,
modification or alteration of a building or structure within the planned unit development shall be
governed by the approved final development plan.
Finding 17.68.070(B):it is the applicant's request to modify the certificate of completion to
all the changes as requested in this application.
Conclusion 17.68.070(8):Consistent.
C.After the certificate of completion has been issued,no change of the approved final development
plan shall be made without an amendment to the plan except as follows:
1. Minor modifications of existing buildings or structures may be authorized by the planning
staff if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan and do not increase
the cubic footage of a building or structure;
Finding 17.68.070(C)(1): The requested modification will affect the cubic footage of the
previously approved buildings and as such requires an amendment of the PUD.
Conclusion 17.68.070(C)(1):Consistent.
2.A building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed may be reconstructed
without approval of an amended planned unit development if the reconstruction complies with the
purpose and intent of the final development plan.
Finding 17.68.070(C)(2):No building permits have been issued to date for any of the lots in
Grey Court PUD, and consequently no buildings have been damaged
Conclusion 17.68.070(C)(2):Not applicable.
D.Amendments to a completed planned unit development may be approved,if appropriate due to
changes in conditions since the final development plan was approved or because there have been
changes in the development policy of the community as reflected by the comprehensive plan or
related land use regulations.
Finding 17.68.070(D): The purpose of the proposed modifications is to accommodate market
demand for two-story dwelling units vs. the lack of demand for the previously approved three-
story units. It is also the applicant's objective to apply TOD MMR standards to improve the
project's compatibility with the surrounding neighborhoods. This is being accomplished
through the use of two-story units and increased rearyard setbacks.
Conclusion 17.68.070(D):Consistent.
E. No modification or amendment to a completed PUD shall be considered as a waiver of the
covenants limiting the use of the land, buildings,structures and improvements within the area of
the PUD.All rights to enforce these covenants against any change permitted by this section are
expressly reserved. (Ord. 1941 §8, 2010; Ord. 1631 §3, 1990; Ord. 1615 §70, 1989).
Finding 17.68.070(E):No lots have been sold, or buildings constructed that would be
impacted by the changes in the CC&Rs required to accommodate landscaping and common
area and parking maintenance as specified in the Staff Report, Conditions.
Conclusion 17.68.070(E):Consistent.
17.65.040 Land Use-TOD District(A)(2) -Medium Mix Residential.This medium density
residential zone focuses on higher density forms of residential living.The range of housing types
includes higher density single-family and a variety of multi-family residences. Low impact
commercial activities may also be allowed.
Finding 17.65.040: In the TOD-MMR district higher density single-family and multiple-
family dwellings are permitted.Specifically,Table 1 under MMR allows attached row houses
as a permitted use.The applicant's proposal is for twenty-three attached row houses
(duplex) and on detached single-family dwelling. No commercial buildings or uses are
proposed.
Conclusion 17.65.040: Consistent.
17.65.050 Zoning Regulations-TOD District(A), Permitted Uses.
17.65.050(D), Density.The allowable residential density and employment building floor area are
specified in Table II.
Finding 17.65.050(D):The minimum and maximum density in the MMR district is 14 and
32 dwelling units respectively; however,within the R-3 district the R-3 density prevails,
which has a density range of 12 to 25 dwelling units as a planned unit development.The
Grey Court PUD was approved at 24 dwelling units (17 units/acres),which is within the
density range of both the R-3 and TOD-MMR.
Conclusion 17.65.050(D): Consistent.
17.65.050(E),Dimensional Standards.The dimensional standards for lot size,lot dimensions,
building setbacks,and building height are specified in Table II.
Findings 17.65.050(E): The following table compares the dimensional requirements in
Table II and III against that proposed in the Grey Court PUD:
Standard MMR Grey Court Compliant
Mitt. otArea 1,50014.ft '-2,030 sq.'ft. " Yes
Av.Min.Lot Area 2,000 sq. ft. 2,000 sq.ft. Yes
` (ri,: 1Id eft ILO Yes
Min.Lot Depth 50 ft. 63.5 ft. Yes
i�Uluy x onttYard ' 10/Is ft. '' lA t ; ` Yes
Side Yard 5}ft.$ 5 ft. Yes
..sri'sut !f'; i s Wq ,sh o t ♦ •' `4,'; F� zi �' .t o." ..
Rear Yard 15 ft. 15 ft. Yes
GarageVEntrance 10 ft.behind bldg. 10 ft.behind bldg. Yes
Max.Bldg.Height 45 ft. 21 ft. Yes
t Max.Lot Coverage 80% 35% Yes
Min.Landscape Area 20% 70% Yes
-llflrul?artdng" 2 Spaces 2 Spaces Yes
Relative to parking, Section 17.65.070(E)(3) requires that only 50%of the off-street parking
be covered.
Conclusion 17.65.050(E): Consistent.
17.65.050(F), Development Standards.
17.65.050(F)(1) Housing Mix. Required minimum types as listed under Residential in
Table I.
Finding 17.65.050(F): Since Grey Court PUD exceeds 16 dwelling units Table II
requires a minimum of two types of housing. Grey Court PUD uses two housing
types in its design.Of the 24 proposed units 2 are single-family detached and 22 are
single-family attached.
Conclusion 17.65.050(F): Consistent.
SUMMARY CONCLUSION:The proposed modifications to the Grey Court PUD are consistent with
all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance as noted above.
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 12,TREES,
OF THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE
APublic Works Department Matt Samitore, Director
CENTRAL 140 South 3rd Street Central Point, OR 97502 1 541.664.7602 I www.centralpointoregon.gov
POINT
July 2, 2013
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: Proposed Amendments to Chapter 12 of the Central Point Municipal Code
Applicant: City of Central Point
STAFF SOURCE:
Dave Jacob, Recreation Coordinator
BACKGROUND:
Under the tree regulations provided in Chapter 12.36 of the Central Point Municipal Code, the City aims
to establish and maintain the maximum amount of tree cover on public and private lands in the city;
provide tree-lined streets throughout the city; select, situate and maintain trees appropriately to minimize
hazard, nuisance, damage, and maintenance cost; to enhance the appearance of the city; to promote a
diverse, healthy, and sustainable community forest; and to educate the public regarding community
forest issues.
The tree regulations apply to individual significant or historic trees; all trees planted in or upon any
public area or right-of-way; all trees planted in or upon any private property which directly affect public
infrastructure including but not limited to sewers, water mains, sidewalks, streets, public property, or
clear vision distances at street intersections; and all trees on developable land and subject to or
undergoing development review such as site plan review, tentative subdivision review, or partition
review.
ISSUES:
The specific amendments to Chapter 12.36 are as follows:
12.36.040 Tree removal/replacement
A. Review Process: The code revision will provide for a more efficient application process for removal
of trees located in the public right of way. Applications for street tree removal would be reviewed and
approved by city staff with an appeal process through the planning commission.
G. Hazard trees: The existing code does not provide a process for removal of hazard trees located on
private properties that pose a threat to individuals as well as public and private infrastructure. The code
will provide for a thirty day noticing process and provide the city with authority to remove a tree if not
taken care of in a timely manner by a property owner.
12.36.050 Review Criteria
D. Nuisance Trees: Broaden the criteria for tree removal by providing language that will allow removal
of"nuisance trees".
Additional changes have been made by the city arborist throughout the code section to clarify issues
related to tree maintenance and protection.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment"A"- Amended Central Point Municipal Code Chapter 12.36 Trees
ACTION:
Discussion and review by the Planning Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve amendments to Chapter 12 and forward to City Council.
ATTACHMENT"A"
Chapter 12.36
TREES
Sections:
12.36.010 Purpose.
12.36.020 Applicability.
12.36.030 Definitions.
12.36.040 Tree removal/replacement.
12.36.050 Review criteria.
12.36.060 Permit exemptions.
12.36.070 Tree topping.
12.36.080 Protection of trees.
12.36.090 Street and frontage tree planting--When required.
12.36.100 Street tree standards.
12.36.110 Street tree plans.
12.36.120 Street tree planting.
12.36.130 Street tree maintenance.
12.36.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this chapter is to establish and maintain the maximum amount of tree cover on public
and private lands in the city; provide tree-lined streets throughout the city; select, situate and maintain
trees appropriately to minimize hazard, nuisance, damage, and maintenance cost; to enhance the
appearance of the city; to promote a diverse, healthy, and sustainable community forest; and to
educate the public regarding community forest issues. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.020 Applicability.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to:
A. Individual significant or historic trees as defined in this chapter;
B. All trees planted in or upon any public area or right-of-way;
C. All trees planted in or upon any private property which directly affect public infrastructure including
but not limited to sewers, water mains, sidewalks, streets, public property, or clear vision distances at
street intersections;
D. All trees on developable land and subject to or undergoing development review such as site plan
review, tentative subdivision review, or partition review. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.030 Definitions.
"Approved tree list" means those trees identified in city of Central Point publication, Tree-Shapes-and
Sizos to Suit tho Sito City of Central Point Street Tree Guide.
"Critical root zone" is generally a circular region measured outward from a tree trunk representing the
essential area of roots that must be maintained or protected for the tree's survival. Critical root zone is
one foot of radial distance for every inch of tree diameter measured at four and one-half feet above
ground level, with a minimum of eight feet. For significant trees, the formula changes to one and one-
half feet for every inch of tree diameter at four and one-half feet above ground level, with a minimum of
twelve feet.
"Crown" means the leaves and branches of a tree or shrub; the upper portion of the tree from the
lowest branches on the trunk to the top. May also be referred to as "canopy".
"Diameter-at-breast-height (DBH)" is tree trunk diameter measured in inches at a height of four and
one-half feet above the ground. If a tree splits into multiple trunks below four and one-half feet, the
trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split.
"Drip line" means a vertical line extending from the outermost edge of the tree's original canopy to the
ground.
"Frontage tree" means a living, standing woody plant typically having a single trunk at least one and
one-half inches in diameter at a point six inches above mean ground level at the base of the trunk, that
is located on private property adjacent to the street right-of-way.
"Hazardous tree" means a tree or part thereof growing on private or public property which endangers,
obstructs or impairs the free and full use of a public area, including utilities within these areas or is
afflicted with or weakened by a disease or injury.
"Historic tree" means selected trees placed on a city inventory based on the age, species, location,
health and historic significance.
"Major pruning" means removal of over twenty percent of the tree's canopy, any tree topping, or
disturbance of over ten percent of the root system.
"Private tree" means a tree located on private property, other than a frontage tree, hazardous tree,
historic tree or significant tree.
"Public tree" means a tree located within a public right-of-way or on public land, such as a city park.
"Significant trees" means selected trees placed on a city inventory based on the age, species, health
and location.
"Street tree" means a living, standing woody plant typically having a single trunk at least one and one-
half inches in diameter at a point six inches above mean ground level at the base of the trunk that is
located within the street right-of-way.
"Topping" means the severe cutting back of limbs to stubs three inches in diameter within the tree's
crown to such a degree so as to remove the natural canopy and disfigure the tree.
"Tree" means any woody plant having a trunk five inches or more in diameter four and one-half feet
above ground level at the base of the trunk. If a tree splits into multiple trunks below four and one-half
feet, the trunk is measured at its most narrow point beneath the split.
"Tree board" means an appointed citizen committee formed for the purpose of hearing concerns and
making decisions regarding trees. The Central Point planning commission currently serves in this
capacity.
"Tree establishment" includes watering, feeding, initial pruning, pesticide or herbicide management,
and replacement of trees, if necessary, for a period of three years from the date of planting. (Ord. 1821
§1(part), 2001).
12.36.040 Tree removal/replacement.
The provisions of this section shall apply to any historic tree, significant tree, street tree, frontage tree
required as a condition of development, public tree or hazardous tree, unless otherwise specified.
A. The removal or major pruning of any tree other than a private tree shall require city approval, unless
specifically designated as exempt by this chapter. Persons wishing to remove or prune such trees shall
file an application for a permit with the Central Point city manager. The applicant shall include
information describing the location, type, and size of the subject tree or trees, and the reasons for the
desired action.
The City shall review the application for the permit within 30 calendar days and either approve,
approve with conditions or modifications, deny the application or request additional information
based on the criteria stated in Section 12.36.050. Any decision to deny the application shall be
in writing along with the reasons for the denial and a description of the appeal process.
An applicant may appeal an adverse determination to the Central Point planning commission. A
written notice of appeal shall be filed with the city manager within 15 calendar days following
the date of distribution of a City's decision. The applicant shall have the burden of proving that
the City made an incorrect decision. Based on the planning commission's findings and
conclusions, the planning commission may affirm, reverse or modify the decision being
appealed.
B. All trees other than private trees shall be removed or pruned following accepted pruning standards
adopted by the city.
C. The applicant shall be responsible for all costs associated with the tree removal or pruning and shall
ensure that all work is done in a manner which ensures safety to individuals and public and private
property.
D. Approval of a request to remove a tree may be conditioned upon replacement of the tree with
another tree from the city's approved tree list, or a requirement to pay to the city an amount sufficient to
fund the planting and establishment by the city of a tree, or trees, of similar value. The value of the
existing tree to be removed shall be calculated using the methods set forth in the edition then in effect
of the "Guide for Plan Appraisal" published by the International Society of Arboriculture Council for Tree
Landscape Appraisers.
E. The applicant is responsible for grinding stumps and surface roots at least six inches below grade. At
least a two-inch-thick layer of topsoil shall be placed over the remaining stump and surface roots. The
areas shall be crowned at least two inches above the surrounding grade to allow for settling and shall
be graded smooth. The applicant shall restore any damaged turf areas and grades due to vehicular or
mechanical operations. The area shall be reseeded.
F. Other conditions may be attached to the permit approval by the Central Point planning commission
as deemed necessary. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
G. The city shall have the right to cause the pruning or removal of any potentially hazardous or
nuisance tree, or parts of a tree, on private property within the city, when such trees constitute a
threat to human life, safety, or property. Except in an emergency when immediate action is
necessary for safety, the Central Point city manager or his designee will notify in writing the
owners of such trees. Said owners at their own expense shall do pruning or removal within
thirty days after the date of notice. In the event of failure of owners to comply with such
provisions, or in the above mentioned emergency situation, the city shall have the authority to
remove or cause to be removed such trees and assess the cost of removal plus reasonable and
actual administrative charges as a lien against the property.
H. In the event that it becomes necessary for the Central Point city manager or his designee to
undertake the inspection, pruning or removal of a potentially hazardous or dead tree from any
private property within the city, the city manager or his designee shall have the right at
reasonable times to enter into or upon said property to inspect, prune or remove said
potentially hazardous or dead tree.
12.36.050 Review criteria.
A permit for major pruning or tree removal shall be granted if any of the following criteria apply:
A. The tree is unsafe, dead, or diseased as determined by a certified arborist. Verification of tree health
may be required, at the expense of the applicant, by a certified arborist acceptable to the city;
B. The tree is in conflict with public improvements;
C. The proposed removal or pruning is part of an approved development project, a public improvement
project where no alternative is available, or is part of a street tree improvement program. (Ord. 1821
§1(part), 2001).
D. A tree is considered a public nuisance which by reason of its condition interferes with the
use of any public area; or which is infected with a plant disease; or which is infested with
injurious insects or pests which therein threaten public or private property, or which endangers
the public health, safety and welfare.
12.36.060 Permit exemptions.
A. Hazardous Tree. If an imminent danger exists to the public or any private property owner or
occupant, the city may issue an emergency removal permit. The removal shall be in accordance with
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) standards.
B. Maintenance. Regular pruning maintenance which does not require the removal of over twenty
percent of the tree's canopy, tree topping, or the disturbance of over ten percent of the tree's root
system is exempt from the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.070 Tree topping.
It is unlawful for any person, firm, or the city to top any tree other than a private tree; however, trees
severely damaged by storms or other causes or certain trees under utility wires or other obstructions
may be exempted from normal pruning practices at the determination of the Central Point planning
commission, applying criteria developed by the city. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.080 Protection of trees.
A. It is unlawful for any person to remove, destroy, break, or injure any tree or part of a tree other than
a private tree. Individuals convicted of removing or destroying a tree or part of a tree without city
approval shall be subject to paying to the city an amount sufficient to fund the planting and
establishment of a tree, or trees, of similar value. The value of the removed or destroyed tree shall be
calculated using the methods set forth in the edition then in effect of the "Guide for Plant Appraisal"
published by the International Society of Arboriculture Council of Tree Landscape Appraisers.
B. It is unlawful for any person to attach or keep attached to any tree other than a private tree, or to the
guard or stake intended for the protection of such tree, any rope, wire, chain, sign, or other device,
except as a support for such tree.
C. During the construction, repair, alteration or removal of any building or structure it is unlawful for any
owner or contractor to leave any tree other than a private tree in the vicinity of such building or structure
without a good and sufficient guard or protectors as shall prevent injury to such tree arising out of or by
reason of such construction or removal.
D. Excavations shall not occur within one and one half times the drip line of any tree other than a
private tree without approval of the city, applying criteria developed by the planning commission. Utility
pole installations are exempted from these requirements. During such excavation or construction, the
excavator or builder shall guard any such tree within said area around the drip line, or as may be
required by the planning commission.
E. All building or other debris shall be kept outside one and one half times of the drip line of any tree
other than a private tree.
F. Every effort should be made to retain existing trees on public or private property as an integral part of
overall community forest canopy and the development process. The planning commission shall
make every effort to modify setback requirements to include existing trees. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.090 Street and frontage tree planting--When required.
A. All new multifamily development, commercial or industrial development, subdivisions, partitions, or
parking lots fronting a public roadway which has a designated curbside planting strip or planting island
shall be required to plant street trees in accordance with the standards listed in Section 12.36.100.
B. Frontage trees shall be required as a condition of new development. The standards for the planting
of such trees are those listed in Section 12.36.100. The number and location of frontage trees shall be
determined by the Central Point planning commission during the site plan, tentative plan or other
discretionary permit review process for new development. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.100 Street tree standards.
A. The species of the street trees to be planted shall be chosen from the approved street tree list unless
approval of another species is given by the Central Point planning commission.
B. Street trees shall be a minimum of one and one-half inches in caliper measured at six inches above
ground level. All trees shall be healthy grown nursery stock with a single straight trunk, a well
developed leader with a good taper of tops and roots characteristic of the species cultivar or variety.
All trees must be free of insects, diseases, mechanical injury, root collaring of the trunk, and other
objectionable features when planted.
C. Small or narrow stature trees (under twenty-five feet tall and less than sixteen feet wide branching)
should be spaced no greater than twenty feet apart; medium sized trees (twenty-five feet to forty feet
tall, sixteen feet to thirty-five feet wide branching) should be spaced no greater than thirty feet apart;
and large trees (over forty feet tall and more than thirty-five feet wide branching) should be spaced no
greater than forty feet apart. Within residential developments, street trees should be evenly spaced,
with variations to the spacing permitted as approved by the city for specific site limitations and safety
purposes. Within commercial and industrial development staggered, or irregular spacing is permitted,
as may be approved by the Central Point planning commission.
D. When located adjacent to a local residential street or minor collector street, street trees shall be
planted within a curb-side landscape strip measuring a minimum of three feet in width. Street trees
adjacent to major collector streets or arterial streets shall be placed a minimum of four feet from the
back edge of the sidewalk. In no case shall a tree be planted closer than two and one-half feet from the
face of a curb.
E. Street trees shall not be planted within ten feet of fire hydrants, utility poles, sanitary sewer, storm
sewer or water lines, or within twenty feet of street light standards or street intersections, or within five
feet of an existing street tree. Variations to these distances may be granted by the public works director
and as may be required to ensure adequate clear vision.
F. Existing street trees shall be retained unless approved by the city administrator for removal during
site development or in conjunction with a street construction project. Sidewalks of a variable width and
elevation may be utilized as approved by the city administrator or his designee to save existing street
trees. Any street tree removed through demolition or construction within the street right-of-way shall be
replaced at a location approved by the city with a tree, or trees, of similar value. As an alternative the
property owner may be required to pay to the city an amount sufficient to fund the planting and
establishment by the city of a tree of similar value. The value of the removed tree shall be calculated
using the methods set forth in the edition then in effect of the "Guide for Plant Appraisal" published by
the International Society of Arboriculture Council of Tree Landscape Appraisers. The developer or
applicant shall be responsible for the cost of the planting, maintenance and establishment of the
replacement tree.
G. Sidewalk cuts in concrete for tree planting shall be a minimum of four feet by six feet, with the long
dimension parallel to the curb.
H. Street trees, as they grow, shall be pruned to provide at least eight feet of clearance above
sidewalks and thirteen feet above local streets, fifteen feet above collector streets, and eighteen feet
above arterial streets. This provision may be waived in the case of newly planted trees so long as they
do not interfere with public travel, sight distances, or endanger public safety as determined by the city.
I. Maintenance of street trees, other than those located in the downtown core area (defined as that area
bordered by Manzanita, Oak, Front and 6th Streets) shall be the continuing obligation of the abutting
property owner. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.110 Street tree plans.
A. Submittal.
1. Subdivisions and Partitions. Street tree planting plans shall be submitted to city staff for
review and approval prior to the filing of a final subdivision or partition plat.
2. Commercial, Industrial, Parking Lots, and Multifamily Residential Development. Landscape
plans, to include street tree planting as may be required by this chapter shall be submitted to
the landscape review committee for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building
permit.
B. Street Tree Plan Content. At a minimum, the street tree plan should:
1. Indicate all existing trees, noting location, species, size (caliper and height) and condition;
2. Indicate whether existing trees will be retained, removed, or relocated;
3. Indicate the measures to be taken during site development to ensure the protection of
existing trees to be retained;
4. Indicate the location, species, and size (caliper and height) of street trees to be planted;
5. Indicate the location of proposed and existing utilities and driveways; and
6. Indicate the location of rights-of-way, existing structures, driveways, and trees including their
species, size, and condition, within twenty feet of the subject site. (Ord. 1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.120 Street tree planting.
A. Residential Subdivisions and Partitions.
1. Planting Schedule. Street trees required of residential subdivisions and partitions shall be
installed prior to submittal of a final subdivision plat or partition plat. As an alternative the
applicant may file a surety bond or other approved security to assure the planting of the
required street trees, as prescribed in the Central Point Municipal Code.
B. Commercial, Industrial, Multifamily, Parking Lot Development.
1. Planting Schedule. Street trees required of a commercial, industrial, multifamily, or parking
lot development shall be installed at the time all other required landscaping is installed. (Ord.
1821 §1(part), 2001).
12.36.130 Street tree maintenance.
Street trees shall be continually maintained, including necessary watering, feeding, weeding, pruning,
pesticide, herbicide application for pest and disease management with removal and
replacement of any dead or dying tree and-replasement, by the developer or property owner for
three full growing seasons following planting, or as may be required by the city. (Ord. 1821 §1(part),
2001).
�(� f !_ OVE
June 23, 2013 1;..1 JUN 2 5 2013
i L
City of Central Point
Planning Department
140 S. Third St.
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: Property at 500-552 Gray Court
To Whom It May Concern:
I own the property at 725 Hopkins Rd., Central Point which is located next to Gray Court.
I have no objections to Scott Rosendahl modifying the application. Personally, I would rather
have two story townhouses than three story townhouses next to me.
I would like to request that Mr. Rosendahl do something with the frees that are next to my fence
in the back and to the trees in front. The trees in back are pushing against my fence and breaking
it down. I plan to replace my fence in the next couple of months and do not want trees pushing
against it and tearing it down. It is going to cost me a lot to replace this fence. Also,the frees in
front on his property need to come down or be trimmed. They are old and they have a lot of ivy
growing in them. One of them had a couple of good size limbs break this last winter and they
are just lying there. They have sent roots throughout my front yard and have made a mess of it.
I really would not like to see one of these trees come down on my house.
Thank you for your consideration in this, and I would appreciate anything that can be done.
Respectfully,
LLC ( çDee A. Coy