Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - November 5, 1996,a CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA November 5, 1996 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 367 1 - 2 V; VI. 3-ZZ- I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Bob Gilkey, Karolyne Johnson, and Valerie Rapp III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of October 1, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes PUBLIC APPEARANCES BUSINESS A.?~ Public Hearing -Review. and recommendation regarding Conditional Use Permit.. ._ Application for Drive-in Fast Food Restaurant. (Burger King) and review and determination of Site Plan Application located at 372W02D Tax Lot 2400) (Agent: Dennis Hoffbuhr) 23 - 48 B. ~19~Public Hearing -Review and recommendation regarding a Planned Unit Development on Gloria Dei Lutheran Church property (372W03AD Tax Lots 4700 ~~and 9100) (Applicant: Gloria Dei Lutheran Church) 49 - 55 C. ~i~ Review and determination regarding a Site Plan Application for Central Point Wrecking (Applicant: A.J. McCleary) 56 - 58 D. Review and recommendation regarding Street Vacation for Right-of--Way along north side of Beall Lane adjacent to Jackson Creek Estates VII. MLSCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF CENTRAL'POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 1, 1996 I. MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:05 P.M. IL ROLL CALL: Those presenf were: Chuck Piland, Angela Curtis, Candy Fish, Bob Gilkey, Karolyhe Johnson, Valerie Rapp. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence - IV. MINUTES Chairman Piland made a correction in the Minutes. On page 1 in the Roll Call, his name should be included. - Commissioner Rapp made a correction on page 3, last paragraph: October 1 should be changed to October 21, 1996. Commissioner Rapp made a motion to approve the September 17, 1996 'Planking Commission Minutbs with the corrections... Commissioner Johnson secohded'the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Curtis, yes; Fish, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Review and determination regarding aoolication for a Sign Variance on rho e~rty located in the C-3 zone IPa~ur~v's1 known-as 129 E Pine Street (372W03DD TL 101001 IApolicant• Troy Irvinal The commission members read the Planning Commission Staff Report. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution #367 to approve the application for a Sign Variance on property located in the C-3 Zone (Papa Murphy's) Known as 129 E. Pine Street (372W03DD TL 10100) (Applicant: Troy Irving). Commissioner Gilkey seconded CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 1, 1996 -Page Two the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Curtis, yes; Fish, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes. Motion: passed. B. Review and recommendation regardina Withdrawal of Territorv from the Jackson County Fire Protection Services District No. 3 INerina Annexation) Commissioner Johnson made a motion to recommend approval of Withdrawal of Territory from the Jackson County .Fire Protection Services District No. 3 (Nering Annexation). Commissioner Curtis seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Curtis, yes; Fish, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes. Motion carried. VII. MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous items. VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to: adjourn:. The .motion. was. seconded by Commissioner Rapp. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. - f~ PL~LNN]N DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: November 5, 1996 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Site Plan Review and Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit Application for Burger King Restaurant - 37 2W 02D Tax Lot 2400 mm The'applicant,`"Pine Street L.L.C., has applied to the City of Central Point for approval of a Site Plan Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a 2,822 sq. ft. drive-in fast food restaurant for Burger King to be located on the west side of S. Peninger Rd. opposite the Pilot Travel Center. The project site is in a C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District: Access to the restaurant will be-from both S. Peninger Rd. and La Rue Dt Authoritvity . CPMC 1.24.020 invests the Planning Commission with the authority to sender a decision on any Site Plan, Conditional Use Permit application. A public hearing is required for consideration of any Conditional Use Permit application: Notice of the publio-hearing was effected in accordance with CPMC (Exhibit B) Annlicable Code Sections CPMC Chapter 17.44 - C-4, Tourist And Oifrce-Professional District identifies drive-in fast food outlets as conditional uses in the C-4 District. It further establishes the development standards and general requirements for uses in the C-4 District: CPMC Chapter 17.72 -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval requires a site plan application for all construction requiring issuance of a building permit and sets forth the standards on which the Planning Commission shall base any decision. CPMC Chapter 17.76 -Conditional Use Permits identifies the findings that must be made by the Planning Commission in granting a conditional use permit and authorizes the imposition of conditions necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 4 3 Discussion Burger King is proposing adrive-in fast food restaurant in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District. (Exhibit A) Tlus type of use is permitted in the C-4 district subject to the approval of a Site Plan and a Conditional Use Permit application by the Planning Commission. The use must also comply with the height, area, width, yard, signs and lighting, off-street parking and general requirements of the C-4 district. Staff finds that the Burger King project is in compliance with all of the aforementioned. requirements. Site Plan Standards CPMC 17.72040 sets out the standards that the Planning Commission must consider in basing its decision on a Site Plan application: A. Landscaping and fencing must be consistent with the neighborhood and used to screen activities and uses that may impact existing neighboring uses. The Burger King project is bordered by public streets on three sides. A 10' buffer and landscape area is proposed along these streets. Additional landscaping is proposed adjacent to the parking area and he restaurant. B. Ingress and egress points must be designed and located. to maintain. and improve traffic flows on public streets. Access to the Burger King project will be provided on both S. Peninger Rd. and La Rue Dr. The S. Peninger Rd. access will be an entrance only. All vehicles will exit onto La Rue Dr. Traffic returning to E. Pine Street and the freeway . interchange will turn left from La Rue Dr. onto S: Peninger Rd. C. Off-street parking and interior circulation must. be adequate to serve the site and maintain good pedestrian and vehicle traffic flows. The McDonald's project will. provide seventy-eight off-street parking spaces including four handicapped parking spaces. Sixty-three parking spaces are required. D. Signs for the project must be designed and located to be compatible with the use and not interfere with traffic control devices or traffic flows: Burger King will have their name and logo on the restaurant building and amenu boardat the drive-thru window: Directional signs will be located at each entrance/exit for the site and at the drive-thru. An eighty foot high pole sign will be located at the corner of E. Pine St. and S. Peninger Rd. E. The site must be designed to be accessible to fire apparatus and have. adequate fire fighting facilities. Fire apparatus will have access to the site from both S. Peninger Rd. and La Rue Dr. Fire hydrants will be installed in accordance with city standards. F. The project must comply with all applicable city ordinances and regulations and must be aesthetically acceptable in relation to the neighborhood and the City of Central Point. Staff finds thatthe Burger King project is in compliance with all city ordinances and regulations. The use of the property for adrive-in fast food restaurant is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding commercial neighborhood. Rgquired Findings for Conditional-Use Permit CPMC 17.76.040 requires that the Planning Commission make the following findings in granting a conditional use permit: A. That the site for the proposed use'is adequate in size and-shape to accommodate the use and to meet all other development and lot requirements ofthe-subject zoning districtand all other provisions of this code. B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use. C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse :effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs. D. That the establishment; maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section. E. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. The applicant has submitted documentation in support of the required findings (Exhibit C). Staffhas reviewed this documentation and wncludesthat, in general, it is adequate to support the required findings. It should be used by the Planning Commission along with the Planning and Public Works staffreports to support the Commission's decision. If the Commission finds in favor of the proposed applications, staff recommends that the conditions of approval as set forth in Exhibits D and E be incorporated into any such approval. Recommendation Staff recommends hat the Planning Commission ake one of the following actions: 1. Approve the Site Plan for Burger King and adopt Resolution No. _, approving the Conditional Use Pemut for Burger King, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit applications for Burger King; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan application and. the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhi i A. Site Plan, Landscaping Flan, Signage for Burger King. B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Applicant's Findings of Fact D: Recommended Planning Department Conditions of Approval E. Public Works StaffReport .. El 1 ~ j I ~ 1 ~ I __'-_. i s ~ ~ ° I _ .-. -..~....- -.'~ ~ ra u I ~, n x i.~ _ ~ a ~F ~ 1 I 1 n ~~ ~" e ~ ~ i I~ 1 I I 1 ( 1 a U 1 ~ ~--~ I 1 4L~p Oma i ~~~ j ~~ ~ ~ C o ~S ~~ €~~ ~~ ~_ ~S ;~ ~~ ~~ ~ n -~ r aj -rt (~ ~" cr v ~ /~J - + ~ ~ ~ Itl (p ~i y ~ y 1 ~ 1 ~.9- M 111 Q ~ ~ 3 ~., ~ _~o tG ~ ~ ~ r- N 0 al z ~ y~ Y c `~ Q i~~ / \ 1 Z 3 0 O N ~ O ,..~1 E ~ O Z ~~ ~ ~- q II ?~ ~ s~ ~~~~ PINE STREET n ~N~NAyp~~yp g ® ~A~~~DGO ~f~~ ~ ~~Y 1~~"~ ~~r- j~BVAIR I ~ ~m I. .1.. ~ .m .. mON ~~~ m r_ ~,m P m OV~ .. .'.. b ,~ ~- ~~ _~. ppppfA ~Nn~~ _~ ~ 1myp11ltly` S~~pi aRR ~ - J11f 111 J Y • c1G01~~JI Z (i -1N O ~'0 ~A0<GT F R~ " rr ~ 3l1WID TL 9°A0 R f ~ f'l1L ~ ° (G-4) I 9 Yn ~___ __ ______________ _ f i ~ 1 P ..$~~ I w~ m 1 2$F 1 Iv 1~ I~ 1 I n a~ +i~i "'u m " m S -i O ~I.. ,z =.z sa m r y Z 5 s~ c r ti g y y 5 tl O . ' 000P'!° ~ CiF .. ~G ~ Be ~ ~ ~~ s ~ ~a~F !~@~5d ,~>y Cn ~ . ~ fYt ~ . 4g ~ U ~a '• ~ i ~ a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ,` ~jf'v _ ~` W RESTAUR~AjN~Tp~FjOR: p7 p/ A~/~ ""~°~ ~~. ' .9 ); F3K''5O~ iNOS7i] o ~ ... ~:. ~ ~ ~ OU~ Y3'Sd8"i~~6'- ~ Y\~Y~-i3 N ... @4@~~n Mo 0 0 << .. ~ _. Go 9z€. ~. -~_ ~ W i!~ ~; _~ ~~~ ~~Q~ ~ 1 ~\ z ~~,~(~~ ` [~ el:( ~~ (Jjs i S U ~~ O% a ~ \`~~ ~~ .~ ~, J .pan w4a __ _. .. ~_ ..y.. N i, ~, LaF2UE DRIvE f I - ~ -E I STING-422"~ARY-SEWcR-LINE- N I _ _ _ - N ~-A .;. is ) ~?~ ~ _~ ~- - ! w" IPROPOS -8'~WAtER-LINE-~~ - ~ -L-•.-N~ i ,-~ 14319' i I v ~,.a - T id~ ' I _ w 12'~ST ~ 7 ~^ G ~~ I ~ 12 I I /~ I \ N ~g 's" '~ I h m ~ I. I ~ --- -- I ~ Zr~ 1 ::~:: ~. I f Z ° ml I .. h ~ .......:.:::::•:..:.::: - i A ~ I I ~ w ~ rNn N 'tA ~ 1 '" I ' I , ~, ~O~ ~~J i ~\ !i 11 } y l4Y1 .. r N N 1 \ : I r \ m~p ~ \ I ` w 1~~ r~, ~ 1 I ca 71 € v ~, ~ ~ A ~ ~ ~~~~ ~ ~ . \ ~ ~ ~ I~ T ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ \ v~ ~n \ I ~ :~ 1 m m <1 ~. 1 ~0 i ~ 1 1 I w~_ 1 A I L I '"- 1I I o I a l9. I I I ~ - 26` ~ I I n. i I ~'. ~ .I I Is ~ 12' 12 18' ~I i ~ I i i ~ ~ ---- ---~ I ~ !~~' I i ~~ EXISTING-12'~WATER LINE-=~-_~gZ~~= ~f~ ~~~~ I II #` I I E r r ~~~~ Q~NN yo~v N I~ IW I I `1 ^~ ~I 0 .~ ~~ Z ~- 9~ cc ~ ~ ~ L0 `-' O n~Y~ I L--------- I ~~z~ ~, 6 0 -~ I I ~ .~ o ~ R ~ ~~ gNg (p (1 y..'OO. a yy r M ~ '15 ~ ~s ~i0 I ~ ,~ -`o- ~~ TR City of Cen~~al' Point ~~HIBr~ -~ PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT James Bennett, A1CP Planning Director NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date of Notice: September 23, 1996 xen Gerschler Plaxuting Technician Hearing Date: Tuesday, October'15, 1996' sanay Lonnnel Planning Secretary Timer 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Council' Chambers 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 95702 NATURE OF HEARINGS Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review a proposed Conditional Use Permit Application and to review a Site Plan Application for the following: , Agent Dennis Hoffbuhr has applied for a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review for a Drive-in Fast Food Restaurant (Burger King) on property located on the west side of South Penninger Road. This property is described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as 37 2W02D Tax Lot 2400. CRTTERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for conditional use permits are set forth in Chapter 17.76 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to access, size and shape of the site, significant adverse impact upon abutting properties, local, state and federal regulations and general health, safety and welfare. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Any person interested in commenting on the proposed amendment to the conditional use permit may submit written comments up until the close of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, October 15, 1996. Written comments may be also sent in advance of the hearing to Central Point City Hall, 155 South 2nd, Central Point, Oregon, 97502, Attention: Planning Department. 2. Issues -which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters will be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decision described above will need to be related to the specific proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 3. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review and City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies are available at 15 cents per page. 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 • Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~~ 4. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the public hearing, the Planning Commission will, review the proposal and any technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear any arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review hearing, the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Conditional Use Permit Application for the project. City..regulations provide that the Central Point City Council is informed about all Planning Commission decisions. The Council may, on its own motion, no later than the regularly scheduled Council meeting following the decision date, call for a review of the Planning Commission decision. Any party aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission may request a review of such action by the City Council by filing. a written appeal to the city no more than seven days after the date the city mails the notice of the decision. ~~ EXHIBIT G FINDINGS IN SUPPORT OF A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FORA FAST FOOD RESTAURANT IN THE C-4, TOURIST AND OFFICE-PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a Burger King Restaurant located south of Pine Street at Peninger Road. The proposed Burger King is east of Peninger Road directly across from the Pilot Travel Center which is currently under construction. The subject site i§ tax lot 2400 T. 37 S., R. 2 W. W.M. and contains 1.2 acres. The.proposed restaurant is 2,822 square feet in size with adrive-thru window and 78 parking spaces. C-4 ZONING DISTRICT (17.44.010) The .purpose of the C-4 zoning district is stated asfollows; "The C-4 district is intended to provide for the developmenf of coneeatrated tourist commercial and entertainment facilifies to serve both local residents-and the traveling public, and also for the development of compatible major professional offrce facilities. C-4 developmerif should occur at locations that will maximize. ease of access and., visibility from fhe Interstate 5 freeway and major arterial sfreets and to be convenient to the users of Expq Park, the airport, and downtown. " The location of the proposed restaurant is idealto meet all of the criteriaset"forth in the above purpose statement. The subject property is located on Pine Street irrvery close proximity to l-5 and' directly across Pine.Street from the Expo Park. In addition the proposed Burger King will be adjacent to the Pilot Travel Center to help serve the needs of the traveling public. ,. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CRITERIA (17.76.040) A. That the sife for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape fo ` accommodate the use and to: meet all other development and lotrequiremenfs of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code; As shown on he attached• site plan the parcel aize and shape accommodate.ahe proposed use as well as parking and landscaping which exceed code standards.. _ 8. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the ' street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size-and condition to effectively accommodate the traffrc that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; ~~ - The subject property. will gain access from the southerly extension of Peninger Road which was. approved as a result of the Site Plan review process for the Pilot Travel Center. The extension of Peninger Road, intersection reconfiguration, and signalization were all designed to accommodate the development of the subject property. The review of all traffic considerations included representatives of the Oregon Department of Transportation and Jackson County as well as the Central Point. All of the reviewing agencies agreed that the approved design of Peninger Road v~ill adequate fo not only serve the subject property but other undeveloped property in the area. C. Thst the'proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; The subject property is located in the midst of a developing freeway interchange, there are no adjacent uses existing or planned which will be adversely impacted by the proposed project. D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulation and therefore will not be detrimental to fhe health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in fhe surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or njuriousfo fhe property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the. community based on fhe. review of those factors listed in subsection C of-this section; The proposed project will be developed and. operated in conformance with all appUcable local, state, and federal regulations. Those regulations and the conditions imposed by this process will insure that the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the. general welfare of the community. CONCLUSION The Planning Commission and City Council can find that the proposed project conforms with the criteria set forth in CPMC 17.04.030 as evidenced by the preceding finding of fact. ~: EXHIBIT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project shall be developed in substantial compliance with the approved site plan. 2. Landscaping shall be installed in accordance with the approved landscaping plan prior to final occupancy. Landscaping shall be continuously maintained. in a healthy growing.:. condition. An automatic irrigation system shalLbe installed for all landscaping subject to the. approval of the Building Department. 3. Off-street parking shall be provided for the project in accordance with the,approved site plan and CPMC 17.64. This shall include required off-street parking and loading, handicapped parking, pazking stall design and aisle width. Any revisions to the parking layout shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to; the issuance~of building permits. 4. Access to the project site shall enter from S. Peninger Rd. and, exit from La Rue Dr, 5. Changes to or. improvement of the public streets adjoining the project site, including all channelization, strping,and signage, shall be constructed in accordance with city, Jackson County, and ODOT standards, as applicable. 6. Each sign proposed for the project shall require a sign permit application to be submitted with the building permit application for the project. 7. An oil/water separator shall be required for the drainage system of the parking area. 8. Hours ofoperation forthe.fast-food restaurant shall be between b:00 a.m. and 12:00 a.m. daily. 9. The approval of the Conditional Use Permit is valid for a period of twelve months. The proposed use must commence within this period or a new Conditional Use Permit must. be applied for. 10. The freeway-oriented pole sign.proposed for the project. shall be a maximum height of 80 feet above ground level and shall not contain more than three hundred square feet of advertising surface. .L e? ~1;H1fi1T E CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT -SITE PLAN REVIEW Date:..... 10/30/96 Applicant: John E. Batzer, et al Project: Burger King Location: South Penninger Road (under construction) LegaL• 37S 2W Section 2; Tax Lots 2400 Zoning: C-4 Plans: Site Plan, Hoflbuhr & Associates, (no date) Report By: MichaeFThornton; Thornton Engineering General, 1. The applicant shall submit to the City's Public Works Department plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modification within the City's rights-of--ways or easements. All `construction shall conform to the City's Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction and such other special specifications herein. No constrnction of public improvements shall commence until the Public Works Department has reviewed, approved; and issued a permit for the'proposed improvements. 2. All attached reports are included by reference as part of the conditions for this application. Streets/Traft;c: 1. Attached is a report dated October 15; 1996, from the City's Traffic Engineer;-john Replinger, DEA, Inc. The city has forwarded Mr. Replinger's comments regarding Pine Street to Jackson County and ODOT. At the'time of this report; no comments from either jurisdiction had been received. 2. Construction drawing improvements shall include or delineate sight triangles, sidewalks, and all other public improvements. The drawings shall also call for internal signing and pavement markings to help exiting traffic take the best route to Pine Street and I-5. Sform Drainage: 1. All storm drainage shall be collected on site and discharged to the storm drainage'system for Penninger Road. 2. This project lies within a Zone B flood plain based on the FIRM, produced'by FEMA. Sanitary Sewer: 1. Attached is a report dated September 24, 1996, from Jim May, Jr., BCVSA District Engineer. 2. Include on the construction drawings the size, type, and alignment of the proposed service lateral connecting to the existing 8-inch PVC. The lateral and mainline shall be in conformance with BCVSA requirements for construction and acceptance. 3. The public sewer line shall be centered within a 15 foot wide public easement for the purpose of access and maintenance. The easement shall extend all the way to an existing City right-of- way or easement. 1 ~' Public Work's Staff Report 10/30/96 Burger King Water System: is Comply with Oregon Health Division requirements for Backflow prevention. Site Work: 1. Provide agrading/paving plan with the construction drawing submittal to the Public Works Department. 2. The project shall include a minimum 24 foot wide cross-access easement. to, and in favor of, TL 2500 and public fire and life safety vehicles and personnel. The easement shall run from the common property line to the LaRue Drive right-of--way. Rights-of-ways/Easements: 1. Evidence of the dedication of the street rights-of--way and public utility easements shown on the Site Plan shall be provided to the City. ~~ 2 ~cn DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, ®, z8z3 SW Corbett Avemiz MEMORANDUM - Portland, Oregon gyzot TO: Mr. Mike Thornton, P.E. Acting City Engineer rel. '°j'~3"eea3 City Of CelltralPOlnt - 'Far, Soj.z:p.:dot FROM: John Replinger, P.E. ~- Senior Transportation Engin~€r SUBJECT: REVIEW OF TRANSPORTATION ISSUES - BURGER KING RESTAURANT -PINE STREET/PENNINGER ROAD DATE: October 15, 1996 BACKGROUND In February 1996, the City of Central Point was presented with a Transportation Impact Analysis ~TIA) for the Pilot Travel Center proposed at Pine Street/Penninger Road. I reviewed this TIA with respect to the City's "Public Works Standards Design Guidelines," Section J. "Traffic Studies." My comments were summarized in my February 28, 1996 memorandum to Ms. Susan Wilson Brodus.: The Ciry has received a conditional use application for a Burger King Restaurant on a site immediately adjacent to the Pilot Travel Center. In support of this application, the following materials have been cited or submitted: • Pilot Travel Center Traffic Impact Study HRH Transportation Engineering, 2/16/96); • Letter to Frank J. Pulver III from Hisham Noeimi (jRH Transportation Engineering, (5/8/96); and • Site Plan. COMMENTS RELATING TO THE TIA The TIA addressed the development of the Pilot Travel Center - essentially a gas station and convenience market. Total PM peak hour trip generation was estimated to be 294 vehicles. As I indicated in my February 28, 1996 memorandum, I found that the TIA meets most of the requirements set forth by the City of Central Point in its "Public Works Standards .Design Guidelines." The report addresses trip generation, traffic assignment, and fraffic.operations at three key intersections: Pine Street with the I-5 west ramps, the I-5 east ramps, and Penninger Road. Traffic operations were addressed for both short-range (year 1996) and long-range (year 2015). V MEM9pR • J• P SITI AIR OA, ~ Mr. Mike Thornton October 15, 1996 Page 2 Because of the predicted failure of the intersections by year 2015, I noted that the report also brings to light some issues which the City may need to deal with on a larger scale. The principal reason these intersections were predicted to fail was the assumed four percent annual growth of through traffic on East Pine Street. COMMENTS RELATING TO SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS In contrast to the February 1996 TIA, Hisham Noeimi's letter to Frank Pulver addresses only a few of the City's TIA requirements. Noeimi's letter includes the. details of trip. generation for the full development of 15.75 acres. It includes an analysis of traffic operations at the three key intersections on' East Pine street, but only for year 1996. There is no analysis for future conditions. Full development of the 15.75 acre site :includes two fast food restaurants, a high turnover restaurant, a motel with restaurant, a second motel, an RY park, and industrial or office uses. Total PM,peak hour trip generation is estimated to be 735 vehicles, roughly two and.a half times that o~the original.~Pilot Travel Centerljro osal. In his May 1996 letter; Noeimi indicateszhat all three intersections will operate at an gcceptable level of service using 1996 background traffic on East Pine Street. LOS is calculated to be "p" or..better during the PM peak at each of the three key intersections. Noeimi also imparts another important calculation in his letter: the queue length for the south approach at the East Pine :Street/Pennnger Road intersection. It should be noted'that the 1996 LOS will be substantially poorer with full development than with the Pilot Travel Center alone. If the background traffic. growth on East Pine Street continues at four percent annually, and if full development occurs as predicted. on the 15.75 acre site, each of the three intersections on East Pine Street can be expected to operate at LOS E during the peak hour within a few years. COMMENTS ON SITE PLAN The site plan provided by the applicant appears to be reasonably good> The primary Burger. King site entry is on Penninger Road about 160 feet south of East Pine Street. It is a right-in, entry-only access point. The exit from the`Burger King to a public-road is to LaRue Drive approximately 100 feet west of Penninger Road. ~~ Mr. Mike Thornton October 15, 1996 Page 3 I have two specific suggestions regarding the site plan: • It will be important for Burger King to develop good internal signing and pavement markings to help exiting traffic take the best route to Pine Street and to I-5 (i.e. via LaRue Drive and Penninger Road); and • LaRue Drive should be developed with a minimum width of 36 feet (40 feet - ' would probably be a little better) to :ensure. that. there is sufficient pavement, width for cleft-turnlane on the west approach to Penninger. Road. I am somewhat concerned about the location of the access -from Penninger Road to the Pilot Travel Center. As indicated above, Noeimi calculated a 178-foot queue for the south approach to the intersection'of East Pine Street and Penninger Road with. full development of the 15.75 acre site. If northbound left-iurn queues in excess of 160 feet accumulate regularly, access from Penninger Road to the Pilot Travel Center .will. ,be blocked. ' This could result in backups into the. East .Pine Street/Penninger Road intersection. The operations at this intersection will need. to be monitored to ensure that this does not result in safety problems. Had we been provided with a traffic analysis for the expanded development when the Pilot Travel Center was' under consideration, we might have spotted this'coiiflict and required a different access location for the Pilot Travel Center. RECOMMENDATIONS Because East Pine Street is under the jurisdiction of Jackson County and the interchange is under ODOT jurisdiction, Lsecommend that we immediately make these agencies aware of the development plans at the site. I suggest we send copies of Noeimi's May 19961etter and whatever information we need to explain the Ciry's conditional use application process to both Jackson County. anal ODOT staff. The more important issue is how we handle this from a City perspective. I am concerned about setting a precedent in the way we handle this project. Although I-am knowledgeable about the. requirements for a traffic analysis, I do not know when the City requires them. What is required of the applicant for a Conditional Use Permit? The original TIA addressed only the Pilot Travel Center and substantially met the City's standards for addressing traffic issues as specified in the City's "Public Works Standards Design;Guidelines," .The supplemental material (Noeimi's May 8, 19961etter) does not address all of the requirements. It does not even mention future year conditions or identify when these key intersections will fail. ~~ ._._.., Mr. Mike Thornton October 15, 1996 Page 4 If there were only a modest increase in traffic relative to the original TIA, we might accept the supplemental materials as adequate. However, the full development involves two and a half times the amount of traffic as the original. I am inclined to recommend that we require that the developer amend the TIA to include either the Burger King or the full development. JGRE:dmt c: James Bennett, City Manager s: \trans \.. cocp0005 \reports \pilot.doc ~~ ,09/Y7/98 FRI_],4:54 PAE 1 541 854 8584 CITY OF CP X001 BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY I,~ PHONE (547)7rS{144.59168011TRMCIFM.MMf1'.'NEDFORO,OREGON9YE01 ~~G James Bennett -Planning Director City of Central Point 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon. 97502 Subject: Site Plan Application for Burger King - 37 2W 2D TL 2400 i i We have reviewed the proposed site plan for ability tc provide sewer service to the site. The site is near an existing BCVSA sewer line and has been connected to our system according to our records. An 8 inch P V C private sewer runs Southerly to the 42 inch interceptor along the West property line of the site. This line maybe evaluated and wnverted to public use for connections if the acceptance criteria are met. We notice that this proposed action is the second development to occur in the vicinity of the BCVSA 42 inch interceptor sewer. CoMecdon of individual services to the interceptor will not i be permitted. The applicant needs to be aware that at least a sewer master plan for the whole site needs to be prepared. Otherutilities may request the same type of master utility plan information so better identify future needs in the area and the method. Gf providing the most economical services. i Thank you for the opportunity to wmment on this proposed action. Sincer arnes Ma Jr. Ps~/~~>:: J Y. District Engineer ..,y W /rF~IJ Poa6it' Fax Nate 7671 0aa p0°Ops- Th Fkam Oo C4 Rm I P11om t ~ (it M ~; 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: November 5, 1996 Central Point Planning Commission James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development; Living. Waters Senior Housing, Gloria Dei Lutheran Church (37 2W 03AD Tax Lot 4700) ]i Gloria Dei Lutheran Church Owner: 745 N: Tenth St. Central Point, OR 97502 Agent: Alex Forrester & Associates 303 NE "E" St. Grants Pass, OR 97526 nin 37 2W 03AD' TL 4700 - 2.76 acres Description: ' R-1-6, Residential Single-Family (6,000 sq: ft.) Summary: The project consists of a and Preliminary Development Plan for a Planned Unit Development on 2.76 acres fora 16-unit senior citizen housing project, Living Waters Senior Housing, located on the site of the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church. th ri CPMC 1.24.020 invests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold public hearings and render decisions on preliminary development plans of planned unit developments. Notice of the public hearing was prepared and delivered in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B) ,Apnlic_, able CPMC 1.24 Public Hearings Procedures. Law: CPMC 17.68 Planned Unit Development (PUD) nit Develonmen A planned unit development (PUD) may be permitted in an R-1 zoning district subject fo the approval of a preliminary development plan. If the preliminary development plan is approved, an application for a final development plan must be submitted within six months of such approval. u~ Project Description CPMC 17.68.010 states that the purpose of planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation. This is achieved by allowing a variety of buildings and structures, types of open space, variable building heights and setbacks, and shared services and facilities.. A PUD can be residential, commercial or industrial in nature. The proposed PLTD is a residential senior citizen housing project. It consists of sixteen single-family attached homes. Each single-family home will be aone-bedroom, one-bath unit approximately 750 sq. ft. in size: A total of six buildings is proposed: Fourbuildings will be single story and two buildings will be two-story. The exterior appearance of the buildings will be designed to appear as single-family residences that will blend in with the existing single family neighborhood. The development will also include landscaped front, side and rear yards, paned walkways, open space and resident and visitor parking areas. The existing public walkway/bikeway which extends from Crater High School to the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church will also be completed completing the link between Crest Dr. and N. Tenth St. (Exhibit A) The project is located on the site of the existing Gloria Dei Lutheran Church which will continue to operate at that location. The senior housing and all common areas will be owned and operated by a non-profit corporation: Occupancy of the homes will be restricted to senior citizens, 62 years of age and older: Covenants, conditions and restrictions (GCBs) will also be adopted for the development.. __ - _.- _. Exceptions to Zoning_and Subdivision Standards Exceptions to the zoning and subdivision standards may be allowed within a planned unit development based upon the applicant's demonstration that the objectives of the zoning. and subdivision titles will be met. Theplanned unit development proposes the following exceptions: 1. Single-family attached dwellings vs. single-family detached dwellings. 2. 1,500 sq. ft. footprint lots vs. 6,000 sq. ft. lots. 3. 35 ft. lot width vs. 60 ft. lot width... 4. 1.5 parking spaces (1 covered, 0.5 visitor) vs. 2 covered parking spaces 5. Development within 50 ft. of a boundary line. The applicant has submitted documentation demonstrating that the objectives of the zoning and subdivision titles will be met if the exceptions to these titles is granted. ~4 Criteria for PUD The applicant has prepared documentation and findings of fact that address the criteria for a PUD set forth in Chapter 17.68 of the Central Point Municipal Code (Exhibit C). Staff has reviewed these criteria and determined that the standards for a PUD can be met for this project subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibits D) and the Public Works Staff Report. (Exhibit E) Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. ~ approving the preliminary development plan for the Living Waters Senior Housing PUD, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff reports; 2. Deny the preliminary development plan for the Living Waters Senior Housing PUD, based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission; 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhi i A. Site Plan, Floor Plans and Building Elevations - B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Applicant's Findings of Fact and Supporting Documentation (separate cover) D. Recommended Planning Department Conditions of Approval E. Public Works Staff Report F. Written Comments Received N T i I ~,~ ~. ~~. -~ P~ ~~ a~ Y~ 8$ ~~ ~/ .~ t 4 26 Z ~'~'~ ~ 6L.OR/R DC/ LU]}IC~AN Cf,G~Gff ° d•° °i^'°om'°~ um~OOm .~.~ .~m• c ~a ueLl ai!S Pasodoai CGMRA[. M/N7; O~t260N ,..,,, ., r J.LiSitl-UC7 j GO/~tl'T S/7=rL4N ~~~,]~,„~= ~.'~'"..+~ / ' I~'• / ~' i~, !~ ~. ~~, 1------- ' !_ ~~ a f ~~ is ~. > ~~ ~ y~ j_. ,. ~~ ,~ ~- a ~,~ ~~ 1 ,~ .\ ®~.,~ ~ ,. /~• ~' /~ '~ O ~"d /~ / /' ~\ .. ~' ~ / $ ~' ~ ' ~, i ~ / 3' i ~ i ` ~ I .. ~:~" ~= ~ y '" ~r V l a n. .1;. 7.. . ~R "~ ~i~ C, `~. .L -; J _ -.. NY7d X77JaVA~aI l.G 'GXHI6IT D•2 ~w'~"r~:'. ~ ~~~~ ~'~ Proposed L•bor Plan and Clevalfon ~•. ~.~:.^ "" ...... ~ NObi'3a~01N/aJ TY>t Two-Story onaaooa vef ra iunam ~aa vuav~a an /,f~~c~J Ny~.((n'~ ~~ e..e.o svmrt[xR] i~a=ewa drM P . ~~ ~4` Q V s ;~. ox u ~~ ~. ~ :o+a~ Y ~ ~ ~- ~ ~~ A.. I~ ~ l~y~ .o-x kA ,' J Q C:~ _ .~.. Czty of Cen~~al' Pozn~ )]C1i1B1T :~. PLANNXNG DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date; of Notice: October 9, 1996 Hearing Date: Tuesday, November 3, 1996 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Council Chambers 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 95702 NATURE OF HEARINGS James Bennett, AICP Planning Director ICen Gersrlscr Pluuung Ted~nician Sandy Lommel Planning Secretary Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review the application for a Planned Unit Development located,ort North Tenth Street adjacent to Gloria Dei Lutheran Church. This public hearing will provide an opportunity for citizens and other interested parties to give testimony and gather information about the following application for a Planned Unit Development: Sixteen single-family attached homes (all one bedtoom units), designed for low- incomesenior citizens known as "The Living Waters Senior Residential Community". The site proposed for this Planned Unit Development is located at 743 North Tenth Street, is 2.76 acres in size, and is legally described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as 372W03AD Tax Lots 4700 :and 9100. PUBLIC•PARTICIPATION 1. Citizens or interested parties may commenton these issues orally and/or in writing during the public hearing which is scheduled on Tuesday, November 5, 1996. 2. Any person interested in commenting on these issues in advance of the public hearing may do so by submitting written comments to Central Point City Hall, 155 South 2nd, Central Point, Oregon 97302, Attention: Planning Department. Failure to raise an issue in the hearing, in person or by letter, or failure to provide statements of evidence sufficient to afford the City an opportunity to respond to that issue; precludes appeal based oni that issue. 3. Foradditional information regarding this matter, the public may contacYthePlanning Department at (541). 664-3324 (ext. 231). ~~ 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 • Pax; (541) 664-6384 ,il:. LOCATION MAP V~1~~~n~ PUNT POINTS of INTEREST w A , Y _ i CascaAe Community Hospital Not every street may be shown on map. z Central Park S Cenval Point School 4 Cily HAn 5 Crater High School 6 Firc Slaliun Bees Av 7 Jackson Ccunly Expo Park R Jawell School c 3 _ _ B Liherly Park ° A ~ 10 LiUrary t ~. 11 Posl Ollice Le*~ a ~ E ~ Olon Rd. 12 Richardson School µy 19 Sconk Jr. High School ~ 4 r 14 Van Horn Pmk fi d J^^----1~(Irnr - Y ~ e' f5 P Av n ,. ~~ o /'~ ti 4r /~ o S ~O r ~ 13 a~ >¢~ ~ ~ ~< o~~r F s vknon. d s. p. °^ / C. ~ a° yArle W ' 4 `--.1 ~ aCI ~~ a ..Qy ~ Beebe Be K e ~, g ~ 'r} ~ . ~ °4 E Pine Sl ~~ 2 `~ ~ '~ TWensAv y '~ S eq EQ ~ ~ ~~~ T ~ ' T nnin __...._. __ _ ,_ m Paby 9 0} O d ~~ 6raangkr Tar k gghiya 4 PI « E~ ~ 12 '~ S Curler Sl ~~ ~ ~ < _ e ~ ~ ~ '~,~1„~ eNle ae 1 5 ' ae~ ~ a Q GF- h ey Q F A °¢ Itd `° p ~ ~ ~ y~ y : ~ ~~ ~AV µerAeel` FeliSeWAv ~ re ~ SCenhal ° ey ~ ~+" ' Ot 9p.. Or ~ °r`ROUVatley PltMaw AV v ~ ~'. ~ y Juaun 9 ° ~ ~ : z 14 i s a, c Brandon ~ A m~' m ~ Tkrw S ~ ~ Penee ~^ ~Ve`e s .~ ~ E ~ ~r ~a NI Tam C4 ~ 5 5 i~°¢~1'.` Llbb ~S(m ~ ~Oe°pet ~ ~S J O, e°a~ ~ K~~ G1 ~ S Arm m~ "~ " a~ EXHIBIT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The applicant shall submit an open space management plan to the Planning Department indicating the manner and schedule by which open space areas within the subdivision will be developed. This shall include any proposed landscaping, irrigation, architectural features and play equipment. All landscaping shall be continuously maintained in a healthy, growing condition and shall be served by an automatic irrigation system. 2. The applicant shall include within the covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the subdivision provisions govenwig the use, maintenance and improvement of common open space areas and authorizing the city to enforce these provisions. A copy of the recorded CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department. 3. The applicant shall submit a fencing plan to the Planning Department specifying the type and location of all fencing for the subdivision. 4. Boats, trailers, campers and similar recreational vehicles maybe stored in carports only. 5. A homeowners' association shall be established for the proposed subdivision for the purpose of permanently maintaining all of the subject property, including common open space areas, individual residences and accessory structures. A copy of the recorded bylaws of.the ' homeowners' association shall be submitted to.the Planning Department. 6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of the Division of State Lands for the project as indicated by its response to the Wetland Land Use Notification Form (Exhibit I). 7. The approval of the preliminary development plan for the planned unit development is contingent upon approval of the associated comprehensive plan amendment and zone map amendment applications by the City Council. If the City Council denies the comprehensive plan amendment and zone map amendment applications, the approval of the preliminary development plan for the planned unit development shall become void. 8. The approval of the preliminary development plan shall become void six months following the date of such approval unless an application for a final development plan has been submitted to the city containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan. 9. The development of each residential lot within the planned unit development shall be limited to single=family attached dwellings with allowed accessory uses. 10. The PUD shall be developed in accordance with the preliminary development plan as approved by the Planning Commission. Modifications to the preliminary development shall be subject to further review and approval by the Planning Commission. ~~ EXIII$IT ~_. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.' STAFF REPORT -PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Date: 10/30/96 Applicant: Gloria Dei Lutheran Church Project: Planned Unit Development Location: 745 North Tenth Street Legal: 37S 2W Section 3, Tax Lots 470Q and 9100 Zoning: R-1-6 Units: 16 Plans:. Concept Utility Plan, 5/30/96 (date in title block: 10/04/96), Design Development Consulting Group Report By: Michael Thornton, Thornton Engineering General 1. The applicant shall submit to the City's Public Works Department plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modification within the City's rights-of--ways or easements. All construction shall conform to the City's Standard Speci$cations and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction. and such other special specifications herein. No constructiomshall commence until the Public Works Department has reviewed, approved, and issued a permit for the proposed improvements. The developer shall pay for all vests associated with the design and instatlation of the,improvements specified on.these plans. Streets/Traffic: 1. Jackson County has jurisdiction over North Tenth Street along the frontage of the proposed project. 2. The applicant shall enter into a deferred improvement agreement with the city/county for the design and construction of the proposed street widening, curb and gutter, sidewalk, lighting, and storm drainage improvements along North 10th street. 3. The construction drawings shall include cleaz vision areas designed to meet the City's Public Works Standazds. Storm Drainage: 1. The developer shall construct an adequately sized storm drainage system to provide for runoffonto the subdivision properly and from onsite runoff. Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this project, the developer's engineer shall provide a complete set of drainage calculations for sizing the storm drainage system. The engineer shall use the rainfall/intensity curve obtained from the Public Works Department for hydrology calculations. Sanitary Sewer: 1. All sewerage system desigq construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of BCVSA, and the Oregon. The City or BCVSA will, upon completion of plan review and approval, 1 32 Public Work's Staff Report Gloria Dei Lutheran Church 10/30/96 submit the plans to the Oregon DEQ for sewer system design approval prior to issuance of a construction permit. The Developer's engineer shall provide DEQ and BCVSA with test reports and certification of the. sewer system constriction prior to final acceptance: 2. The project shall include a public 8-inch sanitary sewer main to serve this project. The onsite public sewer line shall be centered within a 15 foot wide public easement for the purpose of access and maintenance. The easement shall extend all the way to an existing City right-of--way or easement. Water System: 1. The construction shall comply with Oregon Health Division requirements for Backflow prevention. 2. The construction drawings shall indicate type, size and location of water mains and fire hydrants in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards and the recommendation of the County Fire. District 3. 3. Any onsite fire hydrants shall be served by an 8-inoh public water line conforming to the City's Standard Specifications. The onsite public water line shall be centered within a 15 foot wide public easement for the purpose of access and maintenance. Site Work: 1. Provide agrading/paving plan with the construction drawing submittal to the Public Works Department. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the structure and drain lines connected to a curb drain, or an approved storm sewer. Rights-of-ways/Easements: 1. The construction drawings shall show all right-of--way and easement boundaries associated with the project: 2 EXI•IIRIT ~N @5 ~/ OCT 3 01996' ~~'~~~2 ~-~9, i9~~ CITY OF CE1T;;AL ~'OINT U __ TIM __ o •n -~- K,4REN ROBINSON - -y 11955 RAMSEY RD. ~%~~ GOLD NfLL, OR. 97525 ~- a. ~ .. 34 ~~~~~ OCi 29199G' to/2s/9~ Planning Department Central Point City Hall 155 So. 2nd Central Point, Oregon 97502 Dear Sirs /Ladies, I am writing this letter in support of the "Living Waters" Low IncomeSenior Housing Project up for your hearing review on Nov.5,1996. The reason for this project is to provide quality housing for those Seniors of limited means who live in Central Point. Gloria Dei Lutheran Church has been pursuing the complegon of this project since 1988, and therefore obviously feels it a genuine and viable community need for the elderly citizens of our city. They have in addition, placed the good will of the local neighborhood and neighbors with a high priority by conducting several open meetings to keep their neighbors aware of the projects intent and to solicit their suggestions for making the project an asset to the neighborhood. Every effort has been made to keep these living units consistent with the character of the surrounding homes, and at no smalltime and monitary expense to theGloriaDei-Committee and Church. Much effort has also been expended by the Gloria Dei Committee to research and seek advice from similar senior low-income church-run:facilities and the Kellenbeck Management Co. These efforts were to determine the best way to design and build. a project that would be both. pleasing to those in residence, to the community, and yet stillbe financially sound. Bids have been requested from a financing packaging expert in order to fmd the most suitable foundation grants and low-interest loans for this venture. Finally; A Senior Housing Community addition to the local neighborhood would.probably be more esthetically beneficial to the neighborhood than would a younger population increase because of low noise level, low traffic level, time for care of landscaping and buildings, and a service volunteer base with a lot of available time, that usually want to help their community. I urge yon to approve this very worthwhile project. Richard L. VV Phone: (541) 3~ Sincerily yours, ~p~~~~~~ OC i 2 9199G' Cll"Y pF GcfdiRp~(r f'OIIV"f r~...P~l~~ psi ..~x~ .c~ ~ ~.!<. ~~~~~.h./~x~ `-P~t~ ~~~ ~ ~H/: ' ~ / 9~ `r 6 J' of ~urr~~ ~~CJa_-L~Lt/U- ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ G r`~~-.~ `z'~, oe. ~ ~ / .~.-~ ,mac. .~~%~?:~~-emu ~n~ a~~ °~ ~ ~j~`' ~ ~ Co~•r~v' .~aJ a~;~~~~ .~~ `~u~ `-lam ~~~ ~ ~~ irn~a.r~ ~ ~ ~~e ~~~ ~ .~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ - . ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ,~ ~~ ~~ ~~ mac. ,,..~lu-e- o~- .ru~~~~~u~-pL, OO ~.~~ ~~~~~ 36 ~O~Q ~. f ~ ~~a~ y~/ a, ~~ ~~-a/ E%=~i `~~ OGT u ~ 199G' ~''~'` C~ ~ y rUt. ~ ~- ~~ ! `~ ~° ~, C c - !"I - ~-~ -~. V ~ ~~ ~zsz-- -.. -cam- ~ ~.~~ ~- ~~~ ~ s~.~t~c L23 ~~ F V _ /' ~~~ ~~~ p ,_ ~~Q~ ;~-?-- c 3 "~ ~~~~~ OCT 24 1996' October 22, 1996 CITY OF CENTRAL P01NT TIME .,~ Dear /c'iJSl`-Y We the people of Gloria Dei Lutheran Church, 745 No. 10th Street, Central Point, Oregon, deisre to build 16 affordable housing units for low income senior citizens, 62 years of age or older, capable of inde- =.r pendent living, but priced out of the market by high rents and low income. In order to keep the rents truly low cost, the project may depend on the success of a couple of Grant applications. - One of the criteria for awarding Grants is the support of local political, businesses and senior advocates. These will be one bedroom units, built under planned unit development rules: This will be presented to the Central Point Planning Commission, on Tuesday, November 5 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council chambers in Central Point ;City Hall. We invite your attendance or letters of support.. This is to be part of our church's ministry to low income seniors in our commuhity. Oregon law and Grants encourage such units, yet there is a long waiting list. -The list is 'getting smaYler but the waiting time longer, as some folks .give up and remove their names. Granted 16 units is .. not a-total solution, but it's what we can do, as we are limited on the amount of land .available. Other components,.of our community ,service ministry are Access Food -Bank, health fairs ,'CPR classes, crime prevention seminars, drug awareness, and food baskets for needy persons. The argument usually used is, the }ocal private sector should build such units. Sounds :good, but is not happening. in our community, as }and costs, building permits and regulations are such, that these units are not feasible for a builder at affordable pricing. .Consequently the housing-being built is for the general public and low cost units for profit tend to increase crime, and drug use in neighborhoods: One such is Willow Glen in Central Point, being on the same side of town. We are opposed by a citizen group that fears our project will eventually revert to the same. Though .not true: people still-fear the unknown. Being a planned- unit deVelopment,_conditions may be imposed to protect against such things happening. Thanking you for your time and consideration, I remain... Sincerely, ~~~ ~ /. Stanley L. Snook, Co-chair. Senior Affordable Housing Committee Gloria Dei Lutheran Church [j ~ My home phone (541) 664-1316 My address: 3286 Snowy Butte Lane Central Point OR 97502 cc: Debbie Price, County Commissioners, Central Point Senior Center, Lenn Hannon, Eldon Johnson, John Watt and Rusty McGrath, CP Mavor ~' '~` D4YLE AND GLENNA MCCASLIN 920 N 10TH ST qp CENTRAL POINT, OR. 97502 ~~~~~ ~" ~® October 21, 1996 h~ OCT 22 1996' Mr. James Bennet, Director Ylamwig Deparhnent City of Central Point, Central Point, Oregon 97502 CITY OF CL't~TI4AL POINT TIME _.._.~~,._~.>,...._.. Dear NIr. Bennet: We understand that our letter of October 14, 1996, in response to your Notice dated October 9, 1996 regarding Gloria Dei Lutheran Church's application for a Planned Unit Development on'our street, may have. missed a point. 1n April at a meeting, with the church's. neighbors, representatives, of the church heard considerable. opposition to the .proposal to build, and one person we understood to be a church official .stated that the church probably would drop. the proposal, because it and its members: wanted to be good neighbors: We understood from your Notice that the church, igtioring that opposidon by a number of citizens it heard from directly last spring; was continuing its application for a zone change; soilthat it could legally build "the "sixteensingle-family-attached homes". Now we are told the church's application is fora "conditional use permit", rather than a zone change. We understand that such a pertttit, although more narrowly conshued than a zone change, would allow precisely the same buildingas the church wanted inthe fast " instance. As we said in our October 141etter, ,your November 5 hearing date catches us out of town, but we still wish to be heard and have our continuing and heightened opposition to this development in the record. , Our reasons for opposing the zoning change and the building(development) plans submitted by church were stated in our October 141etter..Those reasons have not changed, and it is still our intention that our letter of that date be a part. of the record. Therefore, the substance of that letter is repeated here following our updated concerns. Based on.our updated understanding of the present proposal, we oppose any grant of a "conditional use permit" for single-family ATTACHED HOMES- or any other sanitized language designed to grant the church permission to build an APARTMENT HOUSE on p.l of 5 ~~ this street or any other that is zoned for true single-fatuity dwellings. Our reasons for opposition have changed little. If a zone change or a conditional use permit lead to the same place--to'the scone building, in the same place, by the same proponents; and in roughly the same time frame--nothing is signtticantty different. This change of words is simply linguistic sleight of hand, at best, masking the identical effect of a zone change and a conditional use peirnit. T'o our minds, the proponents are seeking loopholes to do what. they want regardless of the wishes of their neighbors. We recognize opportunism and "the ends justify the means" thinkutg. They are conspicuous to old fashioned capitalism and the profit motn~e. We can and do support our economic system without supporting its excesses and its often unintended , consequences.:Conversely, we do not oppose housing for low- income persons. We de not oppose housing for the elderly, nor the low-income elderly. We do not. oppose the church's good. intentions toward these people.. We DO oppose any developem, ;including churches, who propose zone variances and conditional use pernrits that would have the cumulative effect of unusually increasing population density, and its aftereffects, on our street. $e that: as it may, it seems to us that a conditional use perntit or any equivalent is a very poor vehicle to enable building a structure that will, more likely than not,. have a useful life of 30 or more years. Chances are the costs of buildmg will take 30 years to amortise, so that the building must be made useful forlonger than that time.. As an exception to zoning requirements; the CONDITIONS of a conditional use permit require monitoring and. enforcing. Thirty and more years are a long time to monitor and. enforce an exception. As city administrations: change based on the politics of the moment' as time dulls the concerns of individuals, and as memory of the roles fades, conditions, are not. monitored and enforcement becomes problematical, leading to the very kind of managerial negligence and iraffic, .noise, and population pollution we seek to avoid in a small town. THESE FORCES ARE HOSTILE TO OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AND AND ALL THE THINGS WE VALUE, INCLUDING THE SMALL TOWN PROPERTY AND ENVIRONMENT WE PURCHASED IN GOOD FAITH. Further, as we said in our letter of October 1Q, we believe other churches on this street will want to follow in this church's footsteps,. if this de facto change of zoning is allowed. Certainly, private developers; who may be even more aggresive than the churches, will follow any trail you blaze and any footsteps you allow W be laid in this area. We know we cannot arrest growth in our small town, and we do not oppose building more actual single- ° , fatuity dwellungs on vacant property on our street. We seriously propose that the church sell the parcet it would build the "attached dwellings" on and buy other properly with the proceeds for its apartment house. Or1et it build the number. of "unattached" single family dwellings that the property qualifies for under present zoning rules. Noone will have reason t~ object. p.2 of 5 ~~ ,~~.m. 'k.. K We do oppose multiple "attached dwellings" in the guise of single-family dwellings on ties property. The apparent duplicity in the present. prvposal is offensive to law-abicling citizens who expect public affairs to he conducted as simply and by the rules as humanly possible. 1'lie following paragraphs are the substance of our October 14, 1996 letter. M,y wife and I are amongYhe signers of the petition in April, 1996, opposing atthat-time, the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church's proposal to build 16 units of housing for the low-income elderly (or for anyone else) on North 10th Street. 'We are especially against changing zoning and increasing congestion and safety risks on this thoroughfare. Our reasons are several: 1. Changing the present zoning and allowing the development would jerk the rug out from under those of us who bought our homes in good faith, based in part on the single family dwelling designation; We bought our home in 1992, actually hoping for a quieter street, in teens of truck and other traffic,.than we have. 2. When we as citizenssely on past zoning decisions to'spend our hard earned money on our most important lifetime investment, a change in zoning decisions for the benefit of "special interests"; whomever they maybe, as faz as we are concerned, comipts the integrity of and our faith in the whole process: It betrays the tryst .we :place. in our - o~'icials, both elected and appointed. The present zoninghas worked for all of us, including the churches, up to now. Surely, we know when zones are originally in the process of being devised, new opportunities that were unforseen at the time will arise. As life goes on new thinking brings on new targets for people to shoot at. Business ventures, if encouraged, can always be envisioned in strictly residential areas. - Let's not. encourage them except in presently designated zones. 3. As citizens we feel it is imperative that our representatives make decisions and rules that inspire our confidence in the stability of government to protect our investment and our safety: Noone can guarantee no change, but changing zoning that has proven to be reasonabtygood, just to allow the proposed development, would create unnecessary doubts. about the future chazacter of our street, and therefore, the' quality of our investment. 4. We'believe zones, once established and proven reasonably acceptable to the people, should not be changed unless holy unusual and unforseen circumstances arise.. We do not see the church's motivation as arising from either. unusual or unforseen circumstances.. p.3 of 5 e) 5 . e. Perhaps it's as simple as: the church owns the land; housing for low income elderly is a popular target of opportunity. If it isfundable by the Federal government, can iYbe anything else? 5. Please, we mean no otlerise. We honor all of our churches for the good works they do, but we yuestion any church's ability to maintain an unselfish motive for long, if in fact that is motive in this instance. We can't. know everything that. may be in the wind here bn financial arrangements, but loans have to be paid back. That means some kind of profit must. be promised. Housing for low-income elderly, once established as such, may not be profitable. Should it not be, the church or its backers will probably return to this Department crying real tears that. the zoning needs to he changed again, allowing for a different clientele-than low-income elderly. 6. Low income housing for the elderly, built by a church, if legally established, may qualify for tax exempt status or tax breaks of one kind or another. We aze,against extending tax free or modified tax status to any new building by churches or any other entity. Every property owner, citizen and legal afien should join the rest of us in supporting city services--water, sewer, police and lire protection, street improvements, and general city services and management. It is certain that new building developers, including churches, will expect to enjoy these services. They will increase traffic in the azea, not only during construction but also for theh• clientele. Who can know the distance the services to fhe elderly may extend-w'nursing care with employee traffic? On site medicalfacilities? > Meals on wheels? ???? 7. North 10th Stree€is blessed with an abundance of churoh property.-It appears to us - : - ,- that most of them have some vacant space where apartments, duplexes, or high-rises--for all we know--could be bunk If an allowance to build is granted for one, it is not in the nature of polifics, planning, and the law that others could be denied, for other equally worthy and profitable causes, perhaps other popular targets of opportunity. S. Now, look at the existing physical problems on the stretch of North 10th Sireetin question. It is a long stretch between Hazel and Crest Streets, maybe a thousand feet long with no intersections on the church side. The church side has no'sidewalk its entire length; a narrow gravel shqulder is all. On the opposite side, the sidewallc is only partial .The only designated crosswalk on the entire stretch between the junction of lt?th, 3rd, and Upton 12d. at Fair City Mazket is at Hazel Street. It would be unconscionable to approve this kind of development without additional street, sidewallc, and crosswalk improvements. And police patrol, specificly, on 10th. 9. 10th Street is apparently a designated arterial, funneling traffic off Freeman, Pine, and Biddle through to Scenic Avenue, past Scenic School, and across 99 toward the housing p. 4 of 5 ~. F: there and that.housing out Stage Road toward Uold Hill. With recent wideiung and paving. improvements back beyond Hazel toward fine Street, 10th seems to encourage a heavy foot on the accelerator in both du•ections past the church and ow• house. We see and hear it as we work in ouryatd or garage. And we know, first hand, how little police.patrol actually occurs on lOtlt to catch speeders. GUe see the schoolchildren who do not know to wall: "facing the traffic", and we see increasing iisks'fbr all l~edestiians, even without more devehpment• 10. Look also at-the police record of rickets on .10th street. We are not saying we know, of , a large number being written, but we will bet the police will tell you, anytime they set up on that street, they catch many speeders. I have talked to policemen twice in the last year. about. the speeds, heavy truck Iraflic, and the dangers to school kids walking on 101h. These are problerns that are nofibeing addressed, and they should he, regardless of anyone's building plans. But certainly before more development is approved. To summarize, we object to the zoning change.. We think it is ill-advised. for the several . reasons stated. We want our street confined to the single-family dwelling as promised by present caning, much as it is now: We [hint: it is obvious that more congestion on 10th street is undesirable; we will stillbe of that opinion on that fine day when we have proper sidewalks and crosswalks, and when better control of -speed is devised. , We urge you to deny the proposal for such building and housing without delay. Impact studies, more rethinking;°and other delays do not appear to us to be, necessary. Sincerely, Doyl cCaslin .and 1 ~~ ~~~~ lenna McCaslin c. Tom Chadwell p. 5 of 5 ~J ,-~. ~. ~_ 3 ~~ DOYLE AND GLENNA MCCASLW azo N ~arH sT CENTRAL POINT, OR. 87502 October 14, 1996 ~F~1ae~~~~E.d OCT 1G 1996' Mr. James Bennet; Director Planning Department City of Central Point, Central Point, Oregon 97502 CITY GF CtfVTfiAL POINT TIAAE This letter is in response to your Notice dated October 9, 1996 regarding Gloria Dei Lutheran Church's application for a Planned Unit Development on our street. The November 5 hearing date catches us out of town, but we wish to be heard and have our opposition to this development in the record. Dear Mr. Bennet: " My wife and I are among the signers of the petition in Apri), 1996, opposing at that time, the Gloria Dei Lutheran Church's proposal to build 16 units of housing for the low-income elderly (or for ac-yone else) on North lOW Sheet. We ace especially against changing zoning and increasing congestion and safety risks on-this thoroughfare: Our reasons are- several: 1. Changing the present zoning and allowing the development would jerk the rug out finm under those of us who bought our homes in good faith, based in part on the single famdy dwelling designation. We bought our home in 1992, actually'hopuig for a quieter street, in temu of truck and other traffic, than we have. 2. When we as citizens rely oa past zoning decisions to spend our hard earned money on our most important lifetime im~estment, a change in zoning decisions for the benefit of "special interests", whomever they may be, as far as we are concerned, corrupts the integrity of and our faith in the whole process. It betrays the trust we place in our. oflTicials, both elected and appointed. The present zoning has worked for all of us, including the churches, up to now. Surely, we know when zones are originally in the process of being'devised, new opportunities that were unforseen at the time wt71 arise. As life goes on new flunking brings on new targets for people to shoot at. Business ventures, if encouraged, can always be emnaioned in strictly residential areas. Let's not encourage them except in presenfly designated zones. 4s 3. As citizens we feel iimperative that our representatives makt~decisions and rules that inspire our confidence in the stability of government to protect our investment and our safety. Noone can guarantee no change, but changing zoning that has proven to be reasonably good, just to allow the proposed development, would create unnecessary doubts about the future character of our street, and therefore, the quality of our investment. 4. We believe zones, once established and proven reasonably acceptable to the people, should not be changed unless truly unusual and unforseen circumstances arise. We do not seethe church's motivation as arising from either unusual or unfotseen circumstances. Perhaps it's as simple as: the church owns the land; housing for low income elderly is a popular target of opportunity. _ If it is fundable by the Federal government, can it be anyfliing else? 5. Please, we mean no offense. We honor all of our churches for the good works they do, but we question airy church's ability to maintain an unselfish motive for long, if in fact that is motive in this instance. We can't Imow everything that maybe in the wind here on financial arrangements, but loans have to be paid back. That means some kind of profit must be promised. Housing for low-income elderly, once established as such, may not be profitable. Should it not be, the church or its backers will probably return to this Department cryir-g real tears that the caning needs to be changed again, allowing for a different clientele than low-income elderly. 6. l.ow.income housing for. the elderly, built by a church, if legally established, may qualify for tax exempt status or tax breaks of one kind or another. We are against extending tax free or modified tax status to any new building by churches or airy other.. entity.. Every property owner, citizen and legal alien should join the rest of us in supporting city services--water,- sewer, police and fire protection, street: improvements, and general city services and management. It is certain that new but~ding developers, including chutches, will expeetto enjoy these services.. They wr71 increase.trafficin the azea, not only during., construction but also for their clientele. Who can know the distance the services to the elderly may extend-to nursing care with employee traffic? On site medical facilities? Meals on wheels? ???? 7. North 10th Street is blessed with an abundance of church property. It appears to us that most of them have some vacant space where apartments, duplexes,. orhigh-rises-for all we know-could be built. If an allowance to build is granted for one, it is not in the nature of politics, planning, and the law that others could be dented, for other equally worthy and profitable causes, perhaps otherpopuhu targets of opportunity. 8. Now, look at the existing physical problems on the stretch of North 10th Street in question. It is a long stretch between Hazel and Crest Streets, maybe a thousand feet long with no intersections on the church side. The church side has. no sidewallc its entire length; a narrow gravel shoulder is all, On the opposite side, the sidewalk is only partial. The only designated crosswalk on the entire stretch between the junction of 10th, 3rd, and Upton Rd. at Fair City Mazket is at Hazel Street.. It would be unconscionable to approve this kind of development without additional street, sidewalk, and crosswalk improvements... And police patrol, specificly, on 10th. 4 ~°r ``" 9. 10th Street is apparently a designated arterial, funneling traffic off Freeman, Pine, and Biddle tluough to Scenic Avenue, past Scenic School, and across 99 toward the hauling there and that housing out Stage Road toward Gold Hill. With recent widening and paving improvements back beyond Hazel towazd Pine Street, 10th seems to encourage a heavy foot on the accelerator in both directions past the church and our house. We see and hear it as we work in our yard or garage. And we know, first hand, how little police patrol actually occurs on 10th to catch speeders. We see the school children who do not know to walk "facing the traffic", and we see increasing risks for all pedestrians, even without more development. 10. Look atso at the police record of tickets on 10th street. We are. not saying we know of a large number being written, but we will bet the police will tell you, anytime they set up on that street, they catch many speeders. I have talked to policemen twice in the last year about the speeds, heavy truck traffic, and the dangers to school kids walking on 10th. These are problems that are not being addressed, and they should be, regardless of anyone's building plans. But certainly before more development is approved. To sutxunarize, we object to the caning change . We think it is ill-advised for the several reasons stated. We want our street confined'to the single-famt7y dwelling as promised by present zoning, much as it is now. We think it is obvious that more congestion'on 10th street is undesirable; we will still be of that opinion on that fine day when we have proper sidewalks and crosswalks, and when better control of speed is devised. We urge you to deny the proposal for such building and housing without delay. Impact studies, more rethinking, and other delays do not appear to us to be necessary. Sincerely, yle cCaslin and Glemta McCaslin ~8 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Date of Hearing: November 7, 1996 To: Central Point Planning Commission From: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director Subject: Site Plan Review for Central Point Auto Wrecking (Tax Lot 372W3DB-400) umm The applicant, Andrew J. Mc Cleary, has requested a review of the site plan for the construction of a new building and, fence-for Central Point Auto Wrecking. The project site is approximately 1.08 acres and is located along the east side of North Pacific Highway, about one hundred feet south of Crater High School. The zoning designation of the site is C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial Authority CPMC 1.24.020:invests the Planning Commission with the authority to render a decision on any Site Plan Review application. Background: In September of this yeaz, the Planning Commission approved the reclassification of Central Point Auto Wrecking site from a class "B" non-conforming use to a class "A" non-conforming use. Class "A" non-conforming status enables a property owner to make improvements to the parcel. Discussion: The location occupied by Central Point Auto Wrecking has been used as a wrecking yard for at least 60 years. Mr. McCleary has owned the property since 1977 and is proposing the following improvements on the enclosed site plan (Exhibit "B" ). These include: a) The construction of a 2400 square foot pole building near the southerly boundary of the property. The structure's metal exterior will bear a neutral color such as beige or tan. 1 ~~ b) The removal of an old storage building located adjacent to Highway 99 c) The replacement of the existing fence with a six foot chain link model. The new fence will be equipped with sight restrictive slats. d) The installation of a four byfive foot illuminated sign affixed upon the southwestern corner of the building. e) The planting of trees and shrubs around the perimeter of the wrecking yard to provide an aesthetic buffer to surrounding properties. A drip irrigation system is also proposed. Site Plan Standards: CPMC 17.72.040 sets out the standards that are to be used as the basis for any decision on a Site Plan application. The applicant has submitted supporting documentation in support of these required standards. Staff has reviewed this documentation and concludes that the site plain as submitted is incompliance with all site plan standards and regulations subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the Site Planapplication for the new construction of Central Point Auto W;ecking, based on the information and staff conclusions contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan application; or ' 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan application at the discretion of the Commission. E~h~ l~t~ A: Application for Site Plan Review. B: Site Plan for Central Point Auto Wrecking. C: Notice of Public Hearing. D: Recommended Conditions of Approval. 2 50 _ ~~~~~ SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATI~~r,ElyE~ 7'~C~STHIT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT G ,' ~ ~"_' 1996' 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION 'A ~NoyR2rd ~ /'/CC/qR~ CITY OF CE^!TRAI_ POINT" Name: Address: X20 W, (vue9az/ R.7 ~~~~~~ _ ~~'- C"eu~,a ~ Ctty: ~ pa i.vF State: ~ R ~GO.d Zip Code: 97.5ax Telephone: Buslness: ~S~/~ y,~:' O'J Residence: ST 30. O ~'y ~i' 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name: Address: --. _. .. City: Gtate: ZlpCode: Telephone: Business: Residence: 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One) Name: /~.vclR w r7' /~c /Paxyy . Address: - S32 /1~ ~1-u.v f S City: Ce.r~'fra / Parad state: /~R Zlp Code:.9.7 02 - Telephone: Buslness: _. ~ 6y- hr5~O.9 Residence: $30.OHS'S 4, PROJECT DESCRIPTION Type of DevelopmenL• S~oRa~e llwr ld ra9 Township: 3 ~Range:~~!Secllon: ~3~Lot(s): y~0 Address:___ 53Z //, fra-vf S~' /' ro:~ra/ /''o~.Jf az 97S'oz Zoning District: C- S Protect Acreage: Number of Dwelling Units! - ~ - dross Floor Area: _ 2 yob w. Ff Number of Parking Spaces: 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS r)~,(Thls Application Form [~ Application Fee ~ ~ (S2oo) SPF °ptAn 'lJ Site Plan Drawn to Scale (10 copies) [~' Legal Descdption Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies) C~ Written Authority from Property Owner If Agent CT Reduced Copies (81/2" x 11") of the Slte in Application Process Pian, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans ~ - (1 Copy Each) EXHIBIT i d 1~ i _ _ _ ,noz ~'' -. ....._._ ._.._...._. -._. - - - - i~ ~ i .f•......'.........'.:'..:.:.. ~i ?j • I ~: • 1 I; ~ li•.~ • I l • , ~ ~jl a • ' a • ~w • ~ Y1 ti a 3 • ~ ~ V 'µ q ~~ ~ 0.2' ~ E~ • • ,~. '~ ~'. ~ ~. • ~ • •~ I +. l a •' ~ •~~ .. -`~a. ~ I ~ • • • ~ *I ~, .• ~' • _ ~ y, .r.__~ ~~___ p(' • I • v ~ > ~ • • ~ .N ~ • • ~ : • ' ^' N • ~ • t ®qV ~(R31I' • • • (;Yy~ •~ • Y • • • • • ^\ • y ~; • `~ r • ,Y • y •. O ~q •. .••• • rY E G ~I v Vt Q4 h -5- o- o ~ •• ~ ~I ~ ~ Ir ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~~ W ~ \ C `~• y K QJ C ~ ~ ~~ Q WF 0. O > w Q y~~ ~ a ~ ~c'I y ~ ri Cr !J LL ~ I : ~(1 i AI a ~ © "' i City of Cen~~al Poznt rv~,ri31'r PLANNING DEPARTMENT James Bennett Planning Director NOTICE OF MEETING Date of Notice: OctoUer 9, 1996 Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 5, 1996 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Sandy Lommel Planning Secretary Beginnixtg at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Site Plan application for the construction of a new building and fence on the property commonly known as Central Point Wrecking. This project is in the Thoroughfare Commercial (C-5) Zone located at 532 North Front Street. The proposed improvements include the construction of a 2,400 square foot facility and fencing with sight restrictive slats . On-site improvements would include landscaping; parking and utility . "connections. The specific site is located on Tax "Lot 400 `of Jackson County Tax Assessor Map Page 372W3DB. CRITERTA FOR DECISION The requirements for approval o£ Site Plans axe setforth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to Thoroughfare Commercial, General Regulations, Off-stxeet Parking and Loading, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested iut commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 5, 1996. 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 • Fax (541) 664-6384 J~ 2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on flee matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same aze available at 15 cents per page. ' 5. Por additional information, die public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 (ext. 231) SUMTy1AR'X OP PROCEDURE At the meeting, Plaruting Commission will review the applications, tecluucal staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear arguments on die application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to die criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Plaruung Commission may approve or deny the Site P1anApplication. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Plaru~ing Commission decisions. .- - -. -. ~- ~ CRATER _ HIGH SCHOOL s i°iwo:+li~°-4aon r~~ ~~ y~~~ ~ `a /~~IQ~V!t ~\ -1-8~ R-2~~ M-1 J ~~.. EXHIBIT "D" RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The proposed modifications to the facility shall comply with the approved site plan. 2. The exterior of the new building and fence shall be of a neuhal color specified by the , Planning Commission. 3. The wrecking facility shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations as administered by the State of Oregon, Jackson County and the City of Central Point. 4. The trees, shrubs and irrigation will be installed prior to occupancy of the new building. 5. A demolition permit will be obtained to-remove the old building. 6: Permits must be obtained for the new building, fence and sign. J i3 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE:. November 5, 1996 TO: Central Point Planning Commission ~~ FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Vacation of Street Right-of--Way um a The City is proposing to vacate a 10-foot wide section ofright-of--way. along Beall Lane that was dedicated to the public on the final plat for Jackson Creek Estates Unit No. 7. Anolicable LawLaw ORS 271.130 Vacation on council's own motion; appeal. CPMC 1.24.020 Planning commission and: city council functions... CPMC 12.28 Street and alley vacations. Background The Planning Commission approval of the final plat for Jackson Creek Estates Unit No. 5 on September 21, 1993 included a condition that a 10-foot wide section of right-of--way along Beall Lane be dedicated to the public for future widening of Beall Lane. However, the developer of Jackson Creek Estates Unit No. 5 had already constructed a block wall along the existing right-of--way for Beall Lane. The City recognized that if the right-of--way was dedicated, the block wall would be located within the street right-of--way in violation of City ordinance. Accordingly, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 669 on November 4, 1993 approving an amended final plat for Jackson Creek Estates Unit No. 5 that removed the right-of--way dedication from the plat. A separate agreement was then entered into between the City and the developer whereby the City would not accept or record the right-of--way dedication until the future widening of Beall Lane commenced. Purchasers of lots affected by the'right-of- way dedication were put on notice that upon the widening of Bealt Lane the block wall and any other fences or structures within the right-of--way would be removed by the City at no compensation to the property owners.. ~~ When the tentative plan for Jackson Creek Estates Unit No. 7 was approved by the Planning Commission on February 27, 1996, it included a condition of approval that the right-of--way dedication for Unit No. 7 be addressed in the same way as it had been for Unit No. 5. This would allow the continuation of the block wall along Beall Lane in a straight line. However, when the final plat was recorded on July 3, 1996, the 10-foot wide section ofright-of--way was dedicated on the plat, instead of being addressed through a separate agreement as had been the case with Unit No. 5. Discussion " The vacation of this section of street right-of--way is proposed to permit the continuation of the block wall along Beall Lane in a straight line. This will further allow a separate agreement between the City and affected property owners of Unit No. 7 to be concluded on the same terms as the agreement for Unit No. 5. At the regular meeting of October 3, 1996, the City Council moved to initiate vacation proceedings on its own motion for this portion of the Beall Lane street right-of--way. mmenaarr CPMC 1.24.020 (D) requires that the Planning Commission review all requests for street and alley vacations and forward a recommendation to the City Council. Staff recommends that the Planning Comnssion recommend 'approval of the proposed street right-of--way vacation to the City Council. Exhibits A. Map of Proposed Street Right-of--Way Vacation "1 EXHIBIT ~~ JACKSON CREEK ESTATES UNIT N~o. 7 1&66•-~ - xa av w c ....r..... I ~ -JG ~ ..-I ~- 149.02' -~ us.oo' VICINITY MAP _ ~~ ~ ~ 167.68' ~ i 11 1210 ~ 1 2'W c.~ 3' PUE a 246 ,'~ '1 ~ ~~ 243 'any 1 - 4.12 ~~ y7 ~ 1 10'I'l1E ~ ~ '~9 -~ 6;30' 247 wl 12W ~ Yss'Wci s' ~~ to - t-'". 1 Si r `~ ~ 3 4'FUE} 1 1" ~ °'~` ~rareaxamcnur. 164p"W-L``= 6 12M c 1 (261 W ~ ~,~„ ~wrwa.~ acreaicwaccKUee ~. l1_ 1 1 I ,~6' I i~ 9 ~ ,~~'.1, 25 -~~ a i`-L---~•t ~ ~ - JlMewlcnmce•cw .••l~~I ~~`` 2A3 .1 to 1 0. -e, 1 ~ 1 W.:.. wrraa ~ I IIti .°; t2o4'~ 8 ob 1 t2W V I ~ °'aw'' (_ 27.91' .~ ~~1" ~ ~ ,y u n a 1 ~ (.. . t'36'2Q'E~~ t 10'/UE ' ~ -"1'---V~ auu.t~ra 00.96 ~ i~ 0 242 $ }g, $ ~/U 1' ~~ nh 4.49' n 3 r 250 g 1 i 12151 -di i . ' o' 'W I W I= ~ ~ 1 I ,, r4a-wr,~ . -so.or- _ i . ~' X24 _~p_'1~ x.29.75' •241 g ~ AlO/A(EE OMYE N ~~I~rS4:~_ AIMIAtEE DRIVE 1~ ~M1 S9 ~ ij36 .o ~c 5036'E132.80 n _ _ .: R .... 1 ( t .. ~~ ~~ ~~2 ~ ^ I8 ~ uz ,~°, ~ serln~o~se'c 1 It1ACh~U~,CRHEb: ESTATESt t1B49T i~ti. 69 r ,4,t.~al~~ ~ ^ „ 1 ttS.oo' 13ssY 1 I+s~s1 j crew i deal J: ~~..~ 70.19 ~ •~~` w '259 $ (~ o-10~PIIOEO 1 R ~ ~23t °o .-iSaYSO'38 27 --~ i. ~~'i~G"AY yi .- ... _ t ~ ~'~_ ~s30.i9' . S IW ^ 233 'qa! 0 23.23 73.00' 73.00'. 74.2Y _ Z "`: ~~x ° w 105.00 o itOYU[ o ~ zn ' • eta .' a'4 '47• 1 - . ~- Y7~ 11~~ y.'~.~q . ~ o. ~ _ 1 a~-.i25o w fg 1 •2~!~ St ~y/. i-. "~- •v~ \ ~.50~ ~ $: o ...~;'.~ a~~. I o ..219:. - y~ ~ 1 `hiss t~t~ ' 2ss . 7 I:. g . -~ .oo'- st 2zo ~`~~.i26 2 ~ `t :g .~ ° COURT ~ 1 \. / o ~3~w~t~'~ >,~` ° ~ t 1. ~ a" j 229 . ~ ~ se9'3o-x st' $ ~ A° },sl 221 g :~ ~-c~~ - t 3o se s zss ~,~!i g=g s i tuE~' o~~~ l' ~ _ \ u 6 ~ $ Ito ^"• 0 3i a' $ g °I Z 7 10.42' ~ ~/ 4 A 4 v I 223 n .~~ ~ w o < 2s' 0 15.33' 20.71~ ~ 30.65 tOYUE I ~ ~ a ~ 122e -. N • ~ e' L- °' 1 u 1~ r ~ w b NSO'0 `` ~7 ° !'! ~ ~ ~' 226 - ~ °w, 0 224 225 ~ ~ ° „~ r~i o'~t~ob~ zs6 'ro` 'Z 11227. n w „ - w b ~ j It` ?~ --tss.to~--~'• ~a~i3oza'---'" ~lss.ot~- -- IZ- ~s~^ X69.40'- -t21.tt~-- 7s • ~ 1 1 632.30• t ' -- ~- ., -BEALL•~ ~ -- _ - LANE- 569'53 11 E -."nor' - __,L.______ ______ V ARBA TO BE VACATID BY.CITY Ia ~ot~ t'w ,. 8 •- City of Central Point, Oregon Planning Department