Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 3, 1998CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES FEBRUARY- 17, 1998 I. Meeting called to order at 7:00 P.M. II ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyn Johnson. Angela Curtis was absent. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Jim Bennett, City Administrator, Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official, and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES A. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for January 20, 1998, as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to Consider a Recuest by Pamela Norris to Varv from the Side Lot Setback for a Second Storv Residential Building Addition Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing. There were no conflicts of interest or ex-pane communications. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Mrs. Pamela Norris, 1115 Rose Valley Drive, Central Point, applicant ' stated she needed another room because of family size. Neighboring property owners expressed their support of the proposal in writing. John LeGros, 800 Freeman Road, Central Point, stated there are several two story houses in that area. City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1998 -Page 2 Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 414 approving the request by Pamela Norris to Vary from the Side Lot Setback for a Second Story Addition to her home at 1115 Rose Valley Drive, Central Point. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. Open Discussion with Local Contractors about Development on Narrow and Small Lots. Citv Standards and Padlots. Tom Humphrey stated that there have been a number of questions and issues raised by contractors and City staff concerning small lots and padlots This will be an open discussion concerning some of those issues. The following came forward and spoke in the discussion: Ben Zare, 339 W. Valley View Drive, Ashland, Oregon, was concerned with the expense of the common wall on padlots but supported their use in Central Point as housing for first time house buyers. Gary Whittle, 1588 Upland Place, Medford, OR., was concerned with the setbacks for the development of padlots. He also recommended that the-City allow a limited number of small lots in a regular subdivision. Lois DeBenedetti, stated there are different building standards for constructing padlots vs. a duplex. Padlots are two separate single family dwellings and need separate hookups on utilities. Jim Talent, 576 Mt. View, Central Point, OR, was concerned with setbacks in the side yards, and the two covered parking spaces required. These code requirements limit the living area within each padlot home. Mayor McGrath stated that he would like the code to be clear rather than rely on variances so builders know what is required when they walk in .the front door. Tom Humphrey charted the advantages, disadvantages and recommendations brought up in the discussion, a copy of which is in the City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes February 17, 1998 -Page 3 file. He also reviewed excerpts from the State workbook, House Plans for Narrow and Small Lots. C. Site Plan Aoorovals and Associated Fees Tom Humphrey stated that there are numerous references to fees scattered throughout the municipal code. He would like to take the fees out of the code and set up in a schedule so the code does not have to be revised to change the fees and so applicants are immediately aware of the costs associated with new development. Tom stated that City Council sets fees and changes them. Tom stated that he would also like to consider a charge by the hour for the site application review rather than the set fee now shown. Some applications do not require much time to review and in others the fees can be waived. He'd like to develop some consistency. Planning Commission concurs that all of the fees should be taken out of the municipal code and put on a schedule of fees. VII MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey reviewed future agendas. VIII ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Dunlap. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 9:00 p.m. PLANNING COMMISSION DISCUSSION WITH CONTRACTORS REGARDING SMALL LOT DEVELOPMENT (February 17,1998) Advantages • affordable to the first time homebuyer • homeownership vs. duplex rental • pride in ownership • Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&Rs) apply • also attractive to seniors and single parent females • receive more for the $ due to increasing land costs Disadvantages • added cost of common wall ($SK increase) • utilities were initially a problem but are being worked out • easements limit house placement, design and construction • not enough lot area to satisfy internal building square footage, Medford allows side lot setback of 4' vs. S • permit fees (SDCs in particular) are too high • two covered parking spaces require full size garage which eats up space (triplexes only require one space per dwelling unit) Recommendations • allow a limited number or % of small lots in regular subdivisions, or a mix of small and large lots and permit duplexes on corner lots • use large lots in new subdivisions for more creative development • shrink garage to make living area work • single story homes more desirable to seniors • consider setback relief for infill development • reconsider alley access (Miller Heights in Bend a good example) • diversity is important, new mass produced homes are too sterile PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT I HEARING DATE: Mazch 3, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Tentative Plan for Minor Land Partition of 37 2W OlB Tax Lot 2900- Rex Roberts and Cfiazles F. Lazson. nlicanb Rex Roberts and Charles F. Larson wner• P.O. Box 10667 Eugene, OR 97440 ent• Donald E. Grove P:O. Box 4707 Medford, OR 97501 Property Description/ 37 2W O1B TL 2900- 23 acres Zonine:' R-1-6, Residential Single-Family (6,000 s.f.) R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 s.f.) Sum The applicants, Rex Roberts and Chazles F. Larson aze proposing the minor partition of a 23 acre parcel into two parcels of 3.32 acres and 19.59 acres (Exhibit A). The property is located near the intersection of West Vilas and Hamrick Roads in the R-1-6, Residential Single- Family (6,000 sq. ft.) and R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 sq. ft.) zoning districts. CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a tentative plan for a land partition. Notice of the.public hearing was effected in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). ~lpnlicable Law Central Point Comprehensive Plan & Comprehensive Plan Map CPMC 16.08.010 et seq.-Definitions CPMC 16.10.010 et seq: Tentative Plans CPMC 16.36.010 et seq: Major and Minor Land Partitions CPMC 17.20.010 et seq: R-1, Residential Single-Family District Discussion The project area consists of a single parcel comprised of two tax lots by the Jackson County .Assessor. This application for partition would create a new 3.32 acre parcel adjacent to the east boundary of the cemetery and north of the Central Point East Development. If the partition is approved, the applicants have verbally agreed to develop the 3.32 acre parcel as a "turn-key" park. The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for the proposed minor land partition and have concluded that it is in compliance with all City requirements if all conditions of approval are met. The Public Works Department will require the applicant to provide all necessary documentation, studies and fees if applicable, when the area develops at a future date. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Staff suggests the following findings of fact and conclusions of law as applicable to the project and necessary for its approval: 1. The project area is located in the R-1-6, Residential Single-Family (6,000 s.f.) and R-1-8, Residential Single-Family (8,000 s.f.) Zoning districts The proposal is permitted within the R-1-6 and R-1-8 Residential Districts. This zoning classification is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Map which designates the project site as Low Density Residential.. 2. The project consists of a tentative plan application for the minor partition of approximately 23 acres into two parcels. Each lot meets the Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance requirements for residential lots as well as the specific requirements for the R-1-6 and R-1-8 zones. The tentative plan includes all information required by CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. 2 3. The Planning Department has reviewed the tentative plan for the minor partition, the findings of fact, and the conclusions of law and determined that the project meets all City standards and requirements subject to the recommended conditions of the Planning Department (Exhibit C). The partition meets the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code and offers the potential development of another park facility. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:. 1. Adopt Resolution No. ~ approving the Tentative Plan application for Rex Roberts and Charles F. Larson, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit ); or 2. Deny the proposed Tentative Plan application; or 3. Continue the review of the Tentative Plan application aTthe discretion of the Commission. Exhibits A. Tentative Plan-Minor Land Partition for Rex Roberts and Charles F. Larson B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Recommended Conditions of Approval 3 C51ty of Centr}!i Gilgit ) ~ , E~IIS~~`T' "A't , Planning Depardamt sk IAb Gorner ~ Located in Northwest One-quart j ~ of Section 1, Township 37 South, Range 2 West of the Willamette a Meridian in Jackson Gounty, a Oregon. p True Polnk of Eegvning NB9.44'10"E •`.IBTA2',• `... 453.00' __. 1' '$. $~. I~ $~ 0 _ ~ $ ~ 220.00' 512AT N90.00'00"W ~ W s REGISTERED ~ n ~" Q w -PROFESSIONAL g ~ ~ LAND SURVEYOR $ ~ ..// G~1/Ne~N~ aoe~ ~~Tlwnek Rl:tdEWAL DATE 12-3i-9.8 N89'37'10"E 155A0' N N N pp - ~~d ` N44.49'45"E4 ' 6 6~ A ~ ~ 2b.lb , ~' ~ ~ ~ a • Ne9.87'lore • ' ~ .• " 382.80 Ghord • ° S82.29'45•E SCALE 1" 300' 74A8' 280.14' S09.3T1o•w ~ 0 300 600 900 w y~ `~ q~' {~ ~ . 7 ~ Y6 ~ Q ~` 4 v v ~,.,,~., ~ W. I/ 16 C O R. I ~~ ~ I~ / i ~_ ~/ ~/ ' / ,I /' / '~~ /O ~ I b~'' /^j ~ ~O / p `6 . /~O• 1 •~ Off. ,~O .~ 0~ i ~~~ ' t / ~ i n o N Q ' ~. ~ O ap o ~ O O ~~ Q. exrt18~r ~~,_~ " O 3.32. AGRkS W ' TREGISTERED o , PROFESSIOPdAL - ~ LAhED SU",R~JrdE/YDDQ~ ~ ^, 0 Z ~ OREGON ~~ am ». ws~ . ~' \ ROBERT 4675 TMAMER . l 1 RFi~I'_`l: ~i 3ATE 72-~i•?$ ~ ~ ~ SS9''H'~ 10"W 181.CL' - -- 455.0~- CENTRAL POINT r r~. r T C l~Y ~ ~~~5~/B C~~y of Central Poi.,: PLANNING DEPARTMENT aty or Centr#i E-otn I+XHIB-T'T clrB,t Planning Deparhnenr Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning TechNcian Deanna Gregory Ad[ninistrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: February 11,1998 Meeting Date: March 3, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point,'Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Tentative Subdivision located in the:Residential Single-Family District (R-1-6 and R-1-8) near the intersection of West Vilas Road and Hamrick Roads. If approved, the Tentative Subdivision would create two tax lots (approximately 3.32 and 19.59 acres in size) east and south of the I.O.O.F. Cemetery. The current parcel is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as 37 2W O1B Tax Lot 2900, CRITEffiA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Plans are set forth in Chapter 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, 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 in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 3, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 15$ South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the 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. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~_ . 6 q' . ~ f-1 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 are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony 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. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 Proroseb SNbbivisio~ ,, , . EXHIBIT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on March 3, 1999 unless an application for final Plat has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations.