Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - February 17, 1998~~ <, . CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA February 17, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. t~ ~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 414 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Chuck Piland -Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, and Karolyne Johnson III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and Approval of January 20, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1- 11 A. Public Hearing to Consider a Request by Pamela Norris to Vary from the Side Lot Setback for a Second Story Residential Building Addition. 12 - 15 B. Open Discussion with Local Contractors about Development on Narrow and Small Lots, City Standards and Padlots. 16 - 18 C. Site Plan Approvals and Associated Fees. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOiJRNMENT r~ o CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JANUARY 20, 1998 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:04 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey. Karolyne Johnson came in at 7:20 p.m. Also present were Jim Bennett, City Administrator, Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary. Angela Curtis was absent. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for December 16, 1997, as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, abstain; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. 8eview of Landscaping Renuirements for Oregon State Police Division III Headquarters Jim Bennett reviewed the background for this agenda item. Wally Skyrman, 5488 N. Pacific Highway, Central Point, complainant and neighbor of the new Oregon State Police headquarters, has written a letter concerning the sycamore trees that have been planted next to his property. The State would like the Planning Commission to make a recommendation concerning this situation. Mr. Skyrman gave the Commission a packet with letters and other information concerning the London Plane trees a.k.a. Bloodgood Sycamore trees. He stated that the actual talk about the boundary planting started in March of 1997. He stated that he suggested a Photinia hedge rather than tall trees. The developer stated that they were going to change the plan and plant a Photenia hedge. They have planted the hedge but also planted the trees. Mr. CITY OF CENTRAL POIIVT Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1998 -Page 2 Skyrman stated that he did not realize the significance of this until others mentioned the size, the allergens and the leaf drop of these particular trees. Karolyne Johnson came in at 7:20 p. m. Mr. Skyrman stated that he would be satisfied with only the Photinia Hedge. He would like for them to remove the trees or replace them with a much smaller tree, possibly a Golden Gingko. Carl Skyrman, Lucille, Idaho, brother to Mr. Wally Skyrman, stated the he is a practicing landscape architect. He stated that one of the biggest issues with the trees is the size. It is not a tree to put in a confined area, next to a sidewalk, curb or paving because of the root system. It puts out a tot of shade and would severely impact the hedge. The root system would also damage any water pipes underground. Shannon Bennett, Jacksonville, Or, stated that the Golden Gingko is a very good tree, but they need to specify male trees rather than female trees. Commissioner Dunlap made a motion that the Planning Commission recommend that the- Oregon State Police remove the London Plane trees a.k.a. Bloodgood Sycamore trees on the north side of the property, let the Photinia hedge grow enough to cover the fence area, and, if the State wants to replace the trees, replace them with a smaller tree, possibly a Golden Gingko. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. Review and decision regarding Modification of the Tentative Plan for new Haven Estates and the Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit for Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park. Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. New Haven Estates would eliminate Lots 1 through 7 south of New Haven Road and transfer ownership to the Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park via a lot line adjustment. There are a few areas of concern: 11 )There is a 15-foot easement proposed for access from the mobile home park to the RV storage area. The City feels it needs to be a 20-foot easement and the Fire District concurs; (21 If the entrance to the RV storage area is gated and locked, the Fire District would like to have a lock box on it or some kind of device so they have access to it; (3) This area would be for RV storage only and there would be no occupancy allowed in any vehicle in that area; f41 This area was to have CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1998 -Page 3 a masonry sound wall when it was a part of the New Haven Estates subdivision. The applicant has assured the City they would still build the sound wall and would continue it around the R.V. storage area along New Haven Road all the way up to the entrance of the mobile home park so that it would be completely screened from the roadway. The City would like a minimum height of 8 to 10 feet for the wall to adequately screen the R.V.'s. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, stated that there is a visibility issue with the masonry wall and it might be an appropriate location for an entry sign or landscaping with low shrubs. Herb Farber, 120 Mistletoe Street, Medford, OR, agent of record for New Haven Estates, stated there will be no problem with giving a 20-foot easement. There is enough space to accommodate that. Commissioner Fish stated that there has to be an adequate sight triangle at the intersection of New Haven Road and Hamrick Road. Herb Farber stated that the mobile home park would be responsible for dedicating, by deed, the 20-foot additional right-of-way for Hamrick Road. The engineering and design for the intersection, road improvements, and the wall will have to be reviewed and approved by the engineering department to make sure that the sight triangle is free and clear. It is the intent of the applicants to do some landscaping along the wall when it is built. The applicants have stipulated that they are willing to build an 8-foot wall and whatever style is chosen will be used for all of the frontage of both the mobile home park and subdivision. He stated that on lots 15, 16, 17 and 18 they dropped one lot and changed the alignment of the lot lines. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 412, amending Resolution 403, approving the following modifications to the Tentative Plan for New Haven Estates: 11 Lots 1- 7 and Lot 15 are eliminated; 2) Lots 8 - 14 are renumbered Lots 9 - 15; 3) Lots 16 - 18 are reconfigured and will require driveways that are curved to provide proper access to Hawthorne Way; 4) The 20-foot dedication of street right-of-way along Hamrick Road for Lots 3 - 7 is removed contingent upon transfer of ownership of Lots 1 - 7 to the Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park and completion of a lot line adjustment. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes, Johnson, yes. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Planning Commission Minutes January 20, 1998 -Page 4 Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 413, amending Resolution 390, to approve the following modifications to the Site Plan Review/Conditional Use Permit for Walnut Grove Mobile Home Park: 1) The proposed recreational vehicle storage area is approved subject to the requirements of Fire District 3; 2) The perimeter of the property along New Haven Road and Hamrick Road will be enclosed by an 8-foot masonry wall or an acceptable combination of a berm and a masonry wall subject to approval by the Planning Department and affected utilities; 31 The masonry wall will be designed to meet sight vision triangle requirements at the intersection of New Haven Road and Hamrick Road; 4- The mobile home park will dedicate to the city a 20-foot section of street right-of-way for Hamrick Road adjoining the recreational vehicle storage area. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes with reservations; Fish; yes, Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Commissioner Johnson handed out posters for the Town-Hall Meeting. Jim Bennett discussed future agendas. VIII. Adjournment Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: February 17,1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Heazing -Variance to the side yard setback at 1115 Rose Valley Drive (37 2W 11CA Tax Lot 2800) licant/ caner: Pamela J. Norris 1115 Rose Valley Drive Central Point, OR 97502 en : Christopher Mathas 315 N. Bartlett Street Medford, Oregon 97501 umma The applicant Pamela J. Norris has applied for a Vaziance from the minimum side yard setback that would allow the construction of a second story to the existing residence located at 1115 Rose Valley Drive. The subject parcel is zoned R-1-8, Residential Single-Family. The building currently has a side yard setback that exceeds the minimum but is not sufficient to satisfy the code for the remodel. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Variance. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Applicable Law: CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District CPMC 17.80.010 et seq. - Vaziances Discussion• Pamela Norris is requesting a Variance to the minimum side yazd setback at 1115 Rose Valley Drive to allow the construction of a 575 square foot second story addition to the 1350 square foot residence. The minimum side yazd setback for this project is ten feet since CPMC 17.20.050 requires that side yazd setbacks be increased by an additional five feet per story or partial story adjacent to the particulaz side yazd boundary. 1 The Variance, if approved would allow the proposed addition to be constructed directly over the garage above the existing building footprint located 8 feet, 4 inches from the nearest side property line. There would not appear to be any effective or preferred alternatives to expand the living area of the dwelling. It would be expensive and impractical to move the entire north wall of the structure. Miss Norris has obtained letters of support from several neighbors located on surrounding properties and these are included in your packet (Exhibit "E"). Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law CPMC 17.80.010 stipulates that the Planning Commission may grant a Variance if findings are made that the following considerations will either result from the granting of the Variance or do not apply to the requested application: The Variance will provide added advantages to the. neighborhood or the city such as beautification or safety; ^ The remodel is an overall improvement to the dwelling and enhances it's value. 2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse. impacts upon the neighborhood; ^ Several surrounding property owners have demonstrated their support. Staff has not.received any letters in opposition to the. proposal as of this date. 3. The Variance will utilize property within the intent and the purpose ofthe-zoning district: The proposed residential addition is located within an appropriately zoned (1i-1-8) district. 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to the property in the same zoning district; and ^ There are no apparent special circumstances that apply to this particular parcel. 5. The conditions for which the Variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicant's own actions, not the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ^ The records of Jackson County indicate that the applicant has owned the property since 1987. , The applicant has submitted findings of fact for consideration by the, Commission (Exhibit "C"). 2 Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the Variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2.. Deny the proposed Variance application; or 3. Continue the review and public hearing for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhi ' A. Site Plan B: Notice of Public Hearing C. Applicant's Findings D. .Planning Department Recommended Conditions E. Letters of support for project. G:\PLANNING\NORRISVA.WPD . .. ~D'~ 6T ------( Q'ity of CPaitr~l L'uint ~XHII3IT ~,A« . Planning Deparkne~tt `1 t `~ r r ~ L ~, ~ ~' • . I Iti ~. ;I i • ~--- a O .. ~(t~E WALK • RJ.SE /ALL~Y UR• :: ,. 4 .. City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT CYty of Ceattr~ Polrit .~xxr~r~ tTB Planning Deparymen>t Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Adrninistrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: January 3U, 1998. Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING February 17, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time andplace, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Variance to the side yazd to facilitate the construction of a second story addition. The parcel is located at 1115 Rose Valley Drive in aResidential-Single Family. (R-1-8) zoning district on Jackson County Assessment Map 37 2W 11CA Tax Lot 2800. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Variances are set forth in Chapter 17 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-streetpazking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested incommenting on the ab ove-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 17, 1998.. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. OR 97502 ~ 3. Issues which may r_,,vide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe 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 Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at I S cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Deparkment at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthe meeting, the Planning Commissionwillreviewtheapplications, technical staffreports, heartestimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. SUBJECT PROPERTY 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 V aty or Centx~ rout EXHIBIT ttC t~ Planning Department ~~I~ht Ideas 315 N. Bartlett St. Medford, OR 97501 (541) 770-4575 or 1-800-773-SOLA City of Central Point Building and Planning Dept. 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 RE: Variance Request To satisfy the request for information by the City of Central Point concerning the application for a zoning variance for the residential property at 1115 Rose Valley Dr. in Central Point, Part D-1-5 of Section 17.80:010 apply as follows: 1. The variance will allow for an architectural upgrade and beautification' of the residential structure at 1115 Rose Valley Dr. 2. The addition will have no adverse impact upon the neighborhood. 3. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. 4. No 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ~~.a« __ EXHIBIT "D" RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The project shall be constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. 2. A building permit shall be obtained for the construction. 3. The site plan approval shall expire in one year,February 17, 1999 unless a building permit has been issued and construction has commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. G:~PLANNWGWARISVAR. WPD • Glity of Central Paint EXHIBIT t~E Planning Department To: Central Point Planning Dcp[. To Whom It May Concern 15S S. Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Date: ~ "'1 -~ a From: l ~ j~ o;l ~ Q_ 6 ~O S lC~ ~ j\CjS~ VG_~,~_~~ ~~, c,eN~-~~.~ Aol~~~ o~9~j~ I have been notified by my neighbor, Pam Norris, (To my..... NORTH sovTx EAST WEST ACROSS THE STREET ) that she intends to hire a contractor to build a second story room addition above the garage of her home at 111 S Rose Valley Dr. In Central Point. She has also informed me that the distance that her addition will be from the NORTHEAST property line is too close by I'6" and that a review of this situation will be held February 2nd 1998, to determine whether a variance will be granted to her and if the addition will be permitted. I have no objections to the placement of this second story addition. i~v ~~ ~ ~~ `~ Signed 9 To: Central Point Platming Dept. To Whom It May Concern 155 S. Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 From: Garry L anct- Judi Cc~u,~arnb e ~ ~ Z5 (dose. Ua~t~ ~ Y- Certtra.l~ Pow io2 4~sa2- Ihave been notified by my neighbor, Pam Norris, (To my.. Date: I - q -~ ~" NORTH sovTx EAST WEST ACROSS THE STREET ) that she intends to hire a contractor to build a second story room addition above the garage of her home at 1115 Rose. Valley Dr. In Central Point. She has also informed me that the distance that her additionwill be from the NORTHEAST property line is too close. by 1'6" and that a review of this situation will beheld February 2nd 1998, to determine whether a variance. will be granted to her and if the addition will be permitted. I have no objections to the placement of this second story addition. sigR~ 10 To: Date: I - l - I t~ Central Point Planning Dept. To Whom It May Concern 155 S. Second Street Central Point, Oregon49~750~2 From: ~CpTt/ ~ I ~,,,c.'c'w~ ,~j~ ~ NORTH ~-~%~''~" "~~~ / ~'/ ~,.S~J~--SOUTH I have been notified by my neighbor, Pam Norris, (To my..... EAST WEST ACROSS THE STREET that she intends to hire a contractor to build a second story room addition above the garage of her home at 1115 Rose Valley Dr. In Central Point. She has also informed me that the distance that her addition will be from the NORTHEAST property line is too close by 1'6° and that a review of this situation will be held February 2nd 1998, to determine whether a variance will be granted to her and if the addition will be permitted. I have no objections to the placement of this second story addition. ~~.~ ~%AQ1/i Signed ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 10, 1998 TO: Central PointPlanning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Open Discussion of Development on Narrow and Small Lots Background The City of Central Point adopted criteria for Padlot development in 1995 and has approved several subdivisions for Padlot homes (also known as zero lot line homes) since that time. As you know a Padlot home is similar to duplexes, townhouses, etc. except that it is located on smaller-than-standard-sized lots. These developments are posing a challenge for both the construction community, who must come up with workable building designs, and for City staff who must enforce the municipal code requirements for lot coverage, setbacks, and off-street parking. There are also difficulties that arise associated with utilities and utility easements. I have distributed a letter (attached) to various local contractors who have been building Padlot homes in Central Point and invited them to participate in an open discussion with the Planning Commission regarding development on narrow and small lots. The City has also received a notebook from the State entitled, House Plans,for Narrow and Small Lots and I have been encouraged to share this with the Commission and City Council. Copies of this document will be made available to interested Planning Commissioners and Building Contractors upon request. Discussion As the valley's population continues to grow and as it becomes more difficult to expand Urban Growth Boundaries, there will be a greater demand to build homes at higher densities or to infill vacant and underdeveloped property within the City limits. Development on smaller lots can be attractive to both home buyers and builders because it potentially lowers land and utility costs (making homes more affordable) and creates smaller yards requiring less maintenance. What I expect the Commission and City staff to obtain from local builders are their opinions about 1) padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit padlot and infill development; 3)'their willingness to use new designs from the Livable Oregon notebook; and 4) their recommendations for instituting change. The open discussion will serve as the basis for formulating ordinance revisions that maybe necessary to promote infill development and inject new ideas into the City's community development program. The Commission can expect to provide direction to staff and offer their advice about this subject and subsequent action. 12 City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary February 10, 1998 This letter was sent to seven local contractors Dear I'm writing to invite you to attend an open discussion at the next Central Point Planning Commission meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m, on Tuesday, February 17, 1998. Over the past few weeks a number of questions have been raised about Padlot and infill development. As you know, building on smaller lots makes it difficult to come up with workable building designs in the office and there are often problems with infrastructure, utilities and off-.street ~: parking requirements itl the field. Consequently, City staff would like your input regarding 1) <r: .;. padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit padlot and infili :_. development; and 3) your recommendations for instituting change. The City has received a notebook from Livable Oregon and the State Transportation and Growth Management Program entitled, House Plans for Narrow and Small: Lots. I will be introducing this document to'the Planning Commission and will highlight some of the plans for purposes of discussion. If you can attend the meeting I would expect to receive your reaction to the house plans. Your input is valuable to the City and I hope that you can work this informal workshop into your schedule. If you have any questions please call me at 664-3321 ext. 230. If you cannot attend the meeting but have things that you would like to have discussed you may call me or send me a letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for making Central Point your place of business. Sincerely, Thomas F. Humphrey, AICP C. Jim Bennett, City Administrator City Department Heads 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 14 Livable Oregon 1Yansportation and Growth Management Program ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Livable Oregon Brian Scott, Executive Director and President Lynn Weigand, Program Manager Stephen Duh, Community Development Specialist Transportation and Growth Management Program Bill Adams, AICP, Urban Growth Management Specialist Portland State University Deborah Howe, AICP, Associate Professor Bob Jones, graduate student Catalogue Draft Reviewers Glen Rea, Glen Rea Development Jim Standring, Westland Industries Jeff Fish, Fish Construction Amy Miller, Portland Community Design Chris Cross, Housing Our Families Special Thanks A special thanks to the local home builders and azchitects who provided technical assistance and comment: Jim Standring, Westland Industries Jeff Fish, Fish Construction Bill Dennis, azchitect Von Summers, Home Builders Association of Metro Portland Thanks also to the plan providers, designers, and architects in this catalogue.who aze willingxo. share their house plans with others. 15 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: February 10, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Site Plan Approvals and Associated Fees Background City Planning staff are routinely receiving building permit applications which require site plan review to check lot coverage, setbacks and flood elevations. The City's Municipal Code states that site plan applications for properties located in R-2 or R-3 zoning districts need to be submitted with a'filing fee and then reviewed and approved by City staff (CPMC Section 17.72.020.G). Site plan applications for properties located in R-L or R-1 districts also need to be submitted and reviewed'by staff but the Planning Department has the discretion to waive the filing fee of $200 (Section 17.72.020.D). Padlots are permitted in all zoning districts in the City except R-1 Districts. Due to the way the municipal code is written, it appears that padlots are required to have a site plan review and pay a related fee with each building permit application. If strictly enforced, this could become expensive, inequitable (given the actual staff time involved) and a source of irritation to those who must meet the requirement. This issue was discussed with the City Council during the previous administration but the current City Administrator and I agree that it is time to be revisited. Discussion Being new and confronted with whether or not to collect fees several times in the past three weeks, I've decided to bring this matter to the Planning Commission. First of all, I believe that Planning Department fees should be commensurate with the work performed by staff and second, these fees should not be listed in the Municipal Code but rather in a Department fee schedule that can be more easily read and updated. The Building Department amended Chapter 15.04 of the City Building Code in December to accomplish the same thing. I would like the Planning Commission to consider this matter and advise staff whether to initiate revisions to sections of the Municipal Code that I have identified as well as other sections whether mention is made of planning related fees. Planning Department fees, as they are found in the Municipal' Code, will be subject to revisionduring the upcoming budget process and the Department will reevaluate the cost to our customers at that time. 16 17.72.010--17.72.020 Sections: (Continued): 17.72.070 Expiration. 17.72.080 Site plan compliance--Certificate of occupancy. 17.72.010 Purpose. The purpose of site plan, land- scaping and construction plan approval is to review the site and landscaping plans of the proposed use structure or building to determine compliance with this title and the building code, and to promote the orderly and harmonious development of the city, the stability of land values and investments, and the general welfare, and to promote aes- thetic considerations, and to_help prevent impairment or depreciation of land values and development by the erection of structures or additions or alterations thereto without proper ,attention to site planning, landscaping and the aesthetic acceptability in relation to the development. of neighboring properties. (Ord. 1436 §2 (part), 1981). 17 72 020 Site plan approval required. A. A site plan application conforming to the requirements. of Section 17.72.030 shall be made: , 1. For all construction requiring issuance of a building permit; or 2. Upon a change of use. B. Except for the C-3 zoning district, the require- ment for a site plan application upon a change of use may be waived by city staff if staff determines that no modifi- cations are necessary to the existing access, parking, driveway, or any other facilities on the site. C. In the C-3 zoning .district, the requirement for a site. plan application. may be waived by city staff if: 1. The project involves either a change of use or only maintenance, rehabilitation or modernization of an existing building; and 2. City staff determines that no modifications are necessary to the existing access, driveway, or any other facilities on the site, excluding parking. D. Site plan applications for properties located in R-L or R-1 districts shall be reviewed and approved. by staff unless referred to the planning commission when un- usual features or circumstances of the site or building could result in an adverse impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties. Staff may, in its discretion, waive the site plan application filing fee and any of the re- quirements of 17.72.030(D) for: 1. Single-family residential structures; and 2. Storage sheds, patio covers, garages and car- ports, decks, gazebos, and similar nonoccupied structures used in conjunction with residential uses. 279-40 (Central Point 9/96) 1 `7 17.72.021--17.72.030 E. When the siting of a structure has the potential to interfere with future streets extended from subdivided or partitioned lands, such site plans shall be subject to approval 'by the planning Commission. F. No building permit shall be issued until approval, as provided in this chapter, has been obtained for any building or structure requiring plan approval according to the provisions of this title. ' G. Site plan applications for properties located in R-2 or R-3 districts shall be reviewed and approved by staff if such applications consist of entirely new Con- struction of a single'bulding on a single tax lot having direct access to a public street. Staff may refer such applications to the planning commission when unusual fea- tures or circumstances of the site, building or improve- ments could result in an adverse impact on the neighborhood or adjacent properties.- (Ord. 1745 §1, 1996:. Ord.-1730 §1, 1995: Ord. 1717, 1995:' Ord. 1702 §3, 1994: Ord. 1684 §63, 1993: Ord. 1615 §~52, 54, 1989: Ord. 1436 §2 (part), 1981). 17:72.021 Application and review. Applications shall be accompanied by a fee of two hundred dollars. Such. ap- plications and the review thereof shall conform to the provision of Chapter 1.24 and all applicable laws of`the state. (Ord. 1684 §64, 1993: Ord. 1436 §2 (part), 1981). 17.72.030 Information required. An application shall be filed which shall include the following information:. A'. Name and address of the applicant; B. Statement that the applicant is the owner of the property or is the authorized agent of the owner; C. Address and legal description of the assessor's parcel number of the property; D. The application shall include an accurate scale drawing of-the site, containing, at a minimum, the follow- ing: 1. North arrow, 2. Scale used, 3.' Address and legal description of the assessor's parcel number and tax lot of the property, 4. Lot dimensions, 5. Applicable city zoning designation, 6. Setbacks, 7. Proposed landscaping, 8. Location of all buildings, parking areas, streets, accesses, sidewalks, and other improvements, in- cluding the dimensions of each, 9. Ground and architectural elevations, 10. Distances between buildings, parking areas, streets, sidewalks and other improvements, 11. Surrounding land uses, 279-41 (Central Point 9/96) 18 Central Point 1~ ~~~, `I PLANNING DEPARTMENT :~'~~~%: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director I<en Gerschler Planning Technician February 10, 1998 Tom Malot Malot Construction Company P.O. Box 3847 Central Point, OR 97502 Dear Tom: Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary I'm writing to invite you to attend an open discussion at the next Central Point Planning Commission meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 1998. Over the past few weeks a number of questions have been raised about Padlot and infill development. As you know, building on smaller lots makes it difficult to come up with workable building designs in the office and there are often problems with infrastructure, utilities and off-street parking requirements in the field. Consequently, City staff would like your input regarding 1) Padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit Padlot and infill development; and 3) your recommendations for instituting change. The City has received a notebook from Livable Oregon and the State Transportation and Growth Management Program entitled, House Plans for Narrow and Small Lots. I will be introducing this document to the Planning Commission and will highlight some of the plans for purposes of discussion. If you can attend the meeting I would expect to receive your reaction to the house plans. Your input is valuable to the City and I hope that you can work this informal workshop into your schedule. If you have-any questions please call me at 664-3321 ext. 230. If you cannot attend the meeting but have things that you would like to have discussed you may call me or send me a letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for making Central Point your place of business. Sincerely, Thomas F. TIC-~y, AICP C. Jim Bennett, Ciry Administrator City Department Heads 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary February 10, 1998 Whittle Construction Gary Whittle PO Box 1488 Medford, OR 97502 Dear Gary: I'm writing to invite you to attend an open discussion at the next Central Point Planning Commission meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 1998. Over the past few weeks a number of questions have been raised about Padlot and infill development. As you know, building on smaller lots makes it difficult to come up with workable building designs in the office and there are ofren problems with infrastructure, utilities and off-street parking requirements in the field. Consequently, City staff would like your input regarding 1) padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit padlot and infill development; and 3) your recommendations for instituting change. The City has received a notebook from Livable Oregon and the State Transportation and Growth Management Program entitled, House Plans for Narrow and Small Lots. I will be introducing this document to the Planning Commission and will highlight some of the plans for purposes of discussion. If you can attend the meeting I would expect to receive your reaction to the house plans. Your input is valuable to the City and I hope that you can work this informal workshop into your schedule. If you have any questions please call me at 664-3321 ext. 230. If you cannot attend the meeting but have things that you would like to have discussed you may call me or send me a letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for making Central Point your place of business. Sincerely, Thomas F! Hump ey, AICP C. Jim Bennett, City Administrator City Department Heads 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary February 10, 1998 Zare' Construction Ben Zare' 339 W. Valley View Ashland, OR 97520 Dear Ben: I'm writing to invite you to attend an open discussion at the next Central Point Planning Commission meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m, on Tuesday, February 17, 1998. Over the past few weeks a number of questions have been raised about Padlot and infill development. As you know, building on smaller lots makes it difficult to come up with workable building designs in the office and there are often problems with infrastructure, utilities and off-street parking requirements in the field. Consequently, City staff would like your input regarding 1) padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit padlot and infill development; and 3) your recommendations for instituting change. The City has received a notebook from Livable Oregon and the State Transportation and Growth Management Program entitled, House Plans for Narrow and Small Lots. I will be introducing this document to the Planning Commission and will highlight some of the plans for purposes of discussion. If you can attend the meeting I would expect to receive your reaction to the house plans. Your input is valuable to the City and I hope that you can work this informal workshop into your schedule. If you have any questions please call me at 664-3321 ext. 230. If you cannot attend the meeting but have things that you would like to have discussed you may call me or send me a letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for making Central Point your place of business. Sincerely, Thomas F~ Hump ey, AICP C. Jim Bennett, City Administrator City Department Heads 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary February 10, 1998 Governor Construction Jim Governor PO Box 3337 Central Point OR 97502 Dear Jim: I'm writing to invite you to attend an open discussion at the next Central Point Planning Commission meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 1998. Over the past few weeks a number of questions have been raised about Padlot and infill development. As you know, building on smaller lots makes it difficult to come up with workable building designs in the office and there are often problems with infrastructure, utilities and off-street parking requirements in the field. Consequently, City staff would like your input regarding 1) padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit padlot and infill development; and 3) your recommendations for instituting change. The City has received a notebook from Livable Oregon and the State Transportation and Growth Management Program entitled, House Plans for Narrow and Small Lots. I will be introducing this document to the Planning Commission and will highlight some of the plans for purposes of discussion. If you can attend the meeting I would expect to receive your reaction to the house plans. Your input is valuable to the City and I hope that you can work this informal workshop into your schedule. If you have any questions please call me at 664-3321 ext. 230. If you cannot attend the meeting but have things that you would like to have discussed you may call me or send me a letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for making Central Point your place of business. Sincerely, Thomas F. Hu phrey, AICP C. Jim Bennett, City Administrator City Department Heads 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director I~en Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary February 10, 1998 Fellows Construction Robert Fellows 2750 Heritage Rd Central Point OR 97502 Dear Robert: I'm writing to invite you to attend an open discussion at the next Central Point Planning Commission meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 1998. Over the past few weeks a number of questions have been raised about Padlot and ini"ill development. As you know, building on smaller lots makes it difficult to come up with workable building designs in the office and there are often problems with infrastructure, utilities and off-street parking requirements in the field. Consequently, City staff would like your input regarding 1) padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit padlot and infill development; and 3) your recommendations for instituting change. The City has received a notebook from Livable Oregon and the State Transportation and Growth Management Program entitled, House Plans for Narrow and Small Lots. I will be introducing this document to the Planning Commission and will highlight some of the plans for purposes of discussion. If you can attend the meeting I would expect to receive your reaction to the house plans. Your input is valuable to the City and I hope that you can work this informal workshop into your schedule. If you have any questions please call me at 664-3321 ext. 230. If you cannot attend the meeting but have things that you would like to have discussed you may call me or send me a letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for making Central Point your place of business. Sincerely, Thomas F? Hump ey, AICP C. Jim Bennett, City Administrator City Department Heads 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director I<en Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary February 10, 1998 Sun Country Construction Stephen Tallant PO Box 5268 Central Point OR 97502 Dear Stephen: I'm writing to invite you to attend an open discussion at the next Central Point Planning Commission meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 17, 1998. Over the past few weeks a number of questions have been raised about Padlot and infill development. As you know, building on smaller lots makes it difficult to come up with workable building designs in the office and there are often problems with infrastructure, utilities and off-street parking requirements in the field. Consequently, City staff would like your input regarding 1) padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit padlot and infill development; and 3) your recommendations for instituting change. The City has received a notebook from Livable Oregon and the State Transportation and Growth Management Program entitled, House Plansfor Narrow and Small Lots. I will be introducing this document to the Planning Commission and will highlight some of the plans for purposes of discussion. If you can attend the meeting I would expect to receive your reaction to the house plans. Your input is valuable to the City and I hope that you can work this informal workshop into your schedule. If you have any questions please call me at 664-3321 ext. 230. If you cannot attend the meeting but have things that you would like to have discussed you may call me or send me a letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for making Central Point your place of business. Sincerely, Thomas. Hum ey, AICP C. Jim Bennett, City Administrator City Department Heads 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary February 10, 1998 Cascade Design Jeff Mayfield 815 E Alder Creek Dr Medford OR 97504 Dear Jeff: I'm writing to invite you to attend an open discussion at the next Central Point Planning Commission meeting at approximately 7:00 p.m, on Tuesday, February 17, 1998. Over the past few weeks a number of questions have been raised about Padlot and infill development. As you know, building on smaller lots makes it difficult to come up with workable building designs in the office and there are often problems with infrastructure, utilities and off-street parking requirements in the field. Consequently, City staff would like your input regarding 1) padlot development in general; 2) existing City codes that may limit padlot and infill development; and 3) your recommendations for instituting change. The City has received a notebook from Livable Oregon and the State Transportation and Growth Management Program entitled, House Plans for Narrow and Small Lots. I will be introducing this document to the Planning Commission and will highlight some of the plans for purposes of discussion. If you can attend the meeting I would expect to receive your reaction to the house plans. Your input is valuable to the City and I hope that you can work this informal workshop into your schedule. If you have any questions please call me at 664-3321 ext. 230. If you cannot attend the meeting but have things that you would like to have discussed you may call me or send me a letter. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter and for making Central Point your place of business. Sincerely 1 ~~~ Thomas F. Hum hrey, AICP C. Jim Bennett, City Administrator City Department Heads 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, Or 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384