HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - March 17, 1998CITY OP CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Marsh 3, 1998
REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
Chuck Piland called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL: Jan Dunlap, Don Foster, and Bob Gilkey were present. Angela Curtis,
Candy Fish, and Karolyne Johnson were absent.
Planning Director Tom Humphrey; and Administrative Secretary Deanna
Gregory were also present.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
Planning Director Tom Humphrey presented a letter from Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, Jackson
County Planning Director. The letter inquired about interest in setting up a training session
in Southern Oregon for Planning Commissioners and CitizenAdvisory Committee members.
The Planning Commission members are interested in attending a training session.
III. MINUTES
A. A~oroval of February 17. 1998. Planning Commission Minutes
Bob Gilkey made a motion to approve the minutes as presented. Jan Dunlap seconded.
ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
IV. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances.
V. BUSINESS
A. Public Hearing -Tentative Plan for Minor Land Partition (37 2W 01 B Tax Lot
2900) (Rex Roberts and Charles F. Larson applicants)
There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parts communications.
Planning Director Tom Humphrey explained the Tentative Plan and the intent for the Minor
Partition. The Minor Partition will create two parcels, one of which the City is Considering
for use as a park. There will be no changes to the proposed Central Point East Subdivision.
Mr. Humphrey recommends approval of the Tentative Plan for Minor Land Partition.
Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Dunlap asked if the city would be purchasing any property for the proposed
park. Mr. Humphrey stated that the City and the builders of Central Point East have been
working together to acquire the property to be used.
Ardele Whitman, 225 West Vilas Road, came forward. Ms. Whitman is concerned
with the traffic along Vilas Road. This section of Vilas Road is getting more
dangerous as traffic increases. The Commission explained that there would be
improvements made along Vilas Road when the new subdivisions are built. Ms.
Whitman also asked the commission about annexation, and zoning. She would like
to annex into the City but be able to keep the county zoning if possible, they have
a home business located on that property.
Angela Curtis arrived at 7:25 p.m.
Commissioner Piland closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to approve Planning Commission
Resolution 415 approving the Tentative Plan for Minor Land Partition (37 2W
01 B Tax Lot 2900). Commissioner Dunlap Seconded. ROLL CALL: Motion passed
unanimously.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS
Mr. Humphrey explained the things that the City has been doing to assist in the revitalization
of the Downtown area of Central Point. He also discussed future agenda items and the
Comp Plan Amendments. Mr. Humphrey explained that the City is working on the 1998/99
Budget, and asked Commission members to let staff know if there is any training that they
would like to include it in the 1998/99 Budget.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
Bob Gilkey moved to adjourn, Jan Dunlap seconded, all said "aye" and the Planning
Commission Meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: March 17,1998
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
A_nnlieant/
Owner:
ent:
Central Point Planning Commission
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Public Hearing -Variance to the rear yard setback at 548 Oak Street (37
2W 02CC Tax Lot 10300).
Gary Taylor
548 Oak Street
Central Point, OR 97502
Same
Summary; The applicant Gary L. Taylor has applied for a Variance from the
minimum rear yard setback that would allow the construction of a garage
to be located at 548 Oak Street. The subject parcel is zoned R-3,
Residential Multiple-Family.
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.
ApFlicable Law: CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. - R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District
CPMC 17.80.010 et seq. -Variances
Discussion•
The applicant, Gary Taylor has applied for a Variance from the minimum rear yard setback that
would allow the construction of a standard 2 car garage. The current parcel is 3850 square feet
and does not meet the required 7000 square foot minimum lot size for corner lots in the
Residential Multiple-Family District although it is legally non-conforming. While CPMC
17.60.060 allows an exemption for existing substandard lot sizes, the property owner often must
attempt to build within difficult setback'limitations. If approved'the variance would allow the
applicant to construct the garage within three feet of the rear property line.
1
The applicant would then meet the City's requirement for two covered off-street parking spaces
but would not meet the rear setback requirements.
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:
1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as
beautification or safety;
^ The addition of a garage will allow the applicant to park his,vehicles in an enclosed
structure out of the public right of way and also meet current off street covered
parking requirements.
2. .The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood;
^ The City has not received any correspondence in favor of or opposed to the
proposal..
3. The Variance will utilize property within the intent and the purpose of the zoning district:
^ The proposed structure is located within an appropriately zoned (R-3) district.
4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to property in the same
zoning district; and
^ The parcel upon which a new structure is proposed is a legally non-conforming lot.
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 the Jackson County Assessor indicate that the current parcel .
configuration occurred during the early 1970's.
The applicant has submitted findings of fact for considerationby the Commission (Exhibit "C").
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.
Exhibits:
A. Site Plan
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Applicant's Findings
D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions
G:\PLANNING\98021. W PD
3
~~~ ~~~ ~~
city of Centc}1 i~tgit
EXIiIB~'~? ~+A ~f
Platuting Deparhnm't
v'
.,\
aoe.~
x1
:v
a ~
.~-~~ ~~ ~
~ /~` ~
U 7 ~'
~~ ~ ~ ~
y \ _ q,m ~
~ Oo `r /3' ~"
~ o" _.
~~
......... .. : ~ 4x • .
~~ j
,~t~ ........ ~I'
A2~.SU
. ._... .. _ 732.Sn'G '~Q
~~
.. ... \
...~.. ..
G.~~.
i
t~
•.
~~ ~~'
4
City of Central Point
PLANN,fNG DBPART~MI3IVT
Tom Humpttrry, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Planning Tedutidan
Deanna Gregory
Adminieuative/Planning Secretary
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: February 25,1998
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF' MEETING
March 17, 1998
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Sewnd Street
Central Point, Oregon
sty o r Centr.><i I'olnt
~~IIBI3' t'B tt
Planning Department
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
application for a Variance to the rear yard setback to facilitate the construction of a garage. The
parcel is located at 548 Oak Street in aResidential-Multiple Family (R-3) zoning district on Jackson
County Assessment Map 37 2W 2CC Tax Lot 10300.
CR~RTA FOR DECISION
Tho requirements for Variances are set forth in .Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code,
relating to General Reguiations,Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Constrttction Plans.
The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMIvIENT~
1. Any person interested in wmmenting ontheabove-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, March 17,1998.
2. Written comments may be 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 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.
5
4. Copies of all evidence rolled upon by tho applicant aro avaUable for public roviow at City.
Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Orogon. Copies of the same are available at
15 cents par 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 roview 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 rotated 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.
~~~~~`<
O
~~
SUB,~• ' -
sa~ e~
~6`"
O
6
7
City Of C:CSIti"u Pulnt
. ~XHI~IT t~C tf
Planning DeparKrneat
Request for Variance:
Am applying to change 10 ft. set back on corner lot on Oak St. to 3 ft from properly line in order
to build a standard 2-car garage. This change would not affect any neighbor as it would not be
close to any houses, nor would it hinder anyone's view or access.
If set back stays 10 ft, due to the width of the road (40 ft) and the fact that it is a wrner lot, it
would only allow room to build a 17 ft. garage.
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 Variance approval shall expire in one year, March 17, 1999 unless a building permit
has been issued and construction has commenced and is diligently pursued toward
completion.
G:\PLANNMG\ V ARCOA. W PD
O
PLANNING DEPARTMENT -STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: March 17,1998
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Variance from the special setback requirements of CPMC
,17.60.090 and consideration of clear vision requirements of CPMC
17.60.120 at 1015 Sunrise Way (37 2W 02BC Tax Lot 1518)
A licant
Owner: Tom Malot Construction Company
650 E. Pine Street
Central Point, OR 97502
ent: Same
Summary. The applicant Tom Malot has applied for a Variance from the special
setback requirements for secondary arterial roadways. The subject parcel
is zoned R-3, Residential Multiple-Family.
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.
AFplicable Law: CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. - R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District
CPMC 17.80.010 et seq. -Variances
CPMC 17.60.090 Special Setback Requirements
CPMC 17.60.120 Clear Vision Triangle- Measurement
Standard Specifications/ Public Works Department
Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Discussion•
Tom Malot is requesting a Variance from the special setback requirements on North Tenth Street
which is identified as a secondary arterial in the Central Point Comprehensive Plan. CPMC
17.60.090 requires that structural development along secondary arterials maintain a minimum
setback of 60 feet measured from the centerline. The distance from the N 10th Street centerline
to the proposed dwelling is only 52 feet requiring a variance of 8 feet (refer to Exhibit A). The
stated reasons for special setback requirements are to afford better light, air, and vision on more
heavily traveled streets and to permit the eventual widening of streets..
J .. n
CPMC 17.60.120 and the Standard Specifications of the Public Works Department also require
that development along secondary arterial roadways maintain a vision triangle of 55 feet. The
applicant has satisfied this requirement at the intersection of Sunrise Way and N 10th Street but
an adjoining neighbor has raised the issue of sight distance from the driveway at 364 N 10th (see
Exhibit F). The Public Works Standards and Specifications do appear to apply to driveways
(property access) as well as intersecting streets. However it is unclear to staff when the Clear
Vision Area should be applied and from what point in the driveway the sight distance should be
measured. The Public Works document states that, "Clear.Vision Areas shall be established
when designing and constructing intersections with streets, driveways or alleys (see Exhibit G).
Measuring he clear-vision area from the centerline of the neighbor's driveway it appears that
neither the neighbor nor Mr. Malot would meet the City's criteria.. It is staff's belief that front
yard setbacks are intended to provide an unobstructed view of City streets from which property is
accessed.
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 applicant has stated that approval of a variance would turn a potentially
unbuildable lot into an additional housing site and that the design satisfies the 55'
sight triangle setback at the intersection of Sunrise Way and N 10th Street (refer to
Exhibit "C").
^ According to the Public Works Department, the City has no long range plans to
require more right-of--way or to widen the east side of N 10th Street between Sunrise
Way and Cherry Street.
2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood;
^ A neighbor at 364 North Tenth Street has enclosed a letter expressing concern about
the sight distance from her driveway (Exhibit "F") for the Commission to consider.
^ The applicant has submitted a list of twelve dwellings (within one block of the
subject properly) from which existing setback measurements were made. Three of
the twelve or 25% meet or exceed the special setback requirement (see Exhibit "E").
3. .The Variance will utilize property within the intent and the purpose of the zoning district:
^ The proposed residence is located in an appropriately zoned (R-3) district.
i0
4. ,Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to the property in the same
zoning district; and
The property in question is located on a 3,800 square foot corner lot which, when all
special setback requirements are applied becomes difficult to develop.
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 applicant has stated that the condition requiring the variance was not solely self
imposed. The original configuration and approval of the padlots, which the
applicant subsequently acquired, has required other adjustments in addition to the
proposed variance.
The applicant has submitted findings of fact for consideration by the Commission (Exhibit "C ").
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
Approve the Variance application based onthe 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
hibits•
A. Site Plan
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Applicant's Findings
D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions
E. Setback measurements provided by applicant
F. Letter of concern by neighbor Connie Hoffman
G. Public Works Standard Specifications for Sight Distance and Clear Vision Areas
G:\PLANNING\98022. W PD
' CYty of Centr}~ L~iiC
A ~XI~I~~'T "A ~t
y, ~ ~~ Planning Departwent
-mac
P.O. BOX 3642 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
(503)664-1258 FAX (503)664.4673
..
' ~.
-a2~-
`~
~ +~
is
.. .
y: ~ ~: .
I : ,. ~ ..
i1i-v i ~~~.~
-p~-h•1~! 1~0
~o~ Iq a~-la-~
Ivis~ suulx.lsa~~
~iG.l•~.'~-12A L POI h~'r. oCZ
TOM MALOT CONSTRUCTION LNC.
Ioa. o l' i !o$ _
...
-~Pp B' Pet~~uu.~s ~
-._.. q .... _..._
. ~ - - J
20;
.Cip~~k-
~~ IOL.i' ~.
3~ d'.
Imo; . ~ ~:
k
1-•
~~~~
a,+. ~ 9
-'~ use.. , ' .3zomi~ . -. ~n'Y' :
~ loty, 12670 a'
a i ,~ •t
., ~I ~ ,
K ~ • .. ~' S._ ~~
v
-~p~~~a. Izs
~IG~Iq°~s~uRls~~~Y
L2
. ~ ~ ~~ ,
~ r
~~ /'~1'ti~`~ //
s ~
e ~ /// ~o~ / ~ //
., ~ ~ ~ / ,~,y , a
/ / y`'~y °ti~L° ~ y
/ ,
/ ~ a / ~ r,
~ try d 1
~ ~
/ / yL S~ sr, Jy, \ 9~,. ~p, ,s,~
`l0, ag 9. Or~ ,L w ~9 ,< J96.2G
~y w M ~
Jo, i
/ ~
/ / v yti
~/ ~
~
o / t
N ~ ~~
w
-
•
D ~'
~
a
A
~i,
V /
~
/,
V~ ~
/
d~ ~j
'
0 ~
~
•~ 7 ~1,
N ~J
~Oa
N y
^~~ O
y
U D a
a i`r
• ~c9
Noazt'ta"w_
~- eos.at
~-~-- - - -
~ ~N
~~~
,°,a
~_~ Ns
Q. ~ J~
P ~ ~ " O NC
c ~-
a ~~~~
~c~o
~.
n ~n
~ ~ a~~
~ ~ 3 ~ x~ G1 Z\
J
w~oan ~~ ~~'~
a ~ ~'°.S
0
. ~ ~
p 7
Z
\Q~
S
oZ a~~?,
G~ ~~x ,~~
~•r•o
'Pr
:.
~~`
MO
~~
,~
W
A
~.~
Nfs•oo~{8"~
Jssr
O
c ~g
u z ~
~
° r
"
'
1
A l
~
~°v 1W
,
1
b
7= ,
~ ~~.~
r
LS g~S
•~o ti~1 .~~q9•
5g:~ g1s _ o.
a~0
~y (Na 1~
..w.~a~~.1mW>•wa~lo
iwwa~ I ed ~~
~L " N
~\
~`
V ^
?r~ ,~
9+4t
$y
~+, ~
'L ~ ~ j 13
,{o"\
'n ~
•~~~L
u~
~~ ~ \\ ~/ ~
Jo u; \ /"~
/iw Nq .~._
~I ~ C
// ~~ ~ '' ~
/ _„ t4•
1
~ ~~.
~ ``-y~
~.
~~ ~
p
~ ~~ Q~~ ~
~~ ~
9y~L~ ~ JJ \
~~•
~ `~"~
u~
~~~
d
~~
fa
'•~
.;.>.'~~
~t.-
``
City of Cen~~al Point
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP ,
Planning Director
Ken Gerschier
Planning Technician
Deanna Gregory
Administrative/Plam~irtg Secretary
.~~
Notice of Meetin acy or certtrai post
g B~IIBI'i' '~B tf
Date of Notice: February 25,1998 Planning Deparhnen~t
Meeting Date: March 17, 1998
Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Place: Central Point City Hall
155 South Sewnd 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 Variance to the special setback requirements for structures located adjacent to
secondary arterial roadways. The parcel is located at 1015 Sunrise Way in a Residential-Multi
Family (R-3) zoning district on Jackson County Assessment Map 37 2W 2BC Tax Lot 1518.
CRITERLA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Variances are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code,
relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans.
The proposedplan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards.
PCTBLIC 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'Ititesday, March 17,1998.
2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 135
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502..
3. 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.
,r
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 Plaruring Department at (541) 664-
3321 ext. 231.
SUIVIlVLARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear
testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear argumentson 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
j. J
~~
--~
C5ty of Cenral Pulut
EI~I`T ~tC tt
Plsuning Deparlmeat
TOM MALOT CONSTRUCTION :INC.
P.O. BOX 3847 CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502
(503) 664-1258 FAX (503) 664.4673
March 2, 1998
Central Point Planning Conunission
Tom Humphrey, AICP
155 So. 2nd Street
Central Point; OR 97502
RE: 10"' Street Setbacks
Dear Sir:
This letter is to request a variance on the side yard setbacks for Lot 19,(1015 Sunrise Way) in Bluebird
Heights, Central Point.
The current required setback creates a hardship for Lot 19 making it an unbuildable lot: However, our
requested variance would help alleviate this hardship making it a buildable lot that would enhance the
neighborhood. The area is being unproved with housing of value to the neighborhood by proper design and land
usability, both of which are advantages to the citizens of Central Point. This request for a variance will not have
any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood as proposed within"the 55' sight triangle setback.
This condition was not solely self-imposed, as Lot 18 8t 19 ware developed unbuildable. On November
8, 1997, I submitted a preliminary design for approval to the City Building Departtent. On December 10, 1997
I received a letter from the City of Central Point Planning Department with the possible approval of a lot line
adjustment for Lot 18 and 19 if the lot square footage for each would be maintained as stated in the letter. I then
employed Hoffbuhr & Associates to prepare a metes & bounds description to conform with the City's
requirements on Lots 18 & 19. We then submitted the properly line adjustments on January 20, 1998 and they
were recorded on February 23, 1998.
On February 24, 1998, it was then brought to my attention of a required 60' setback on 10~' Street from
center line. This was my first knowledge that a problem might exist. Since this was brought to ,ny attention I
have researched and made available to you an enclosed list of existing properties that do not conform to these
setbacks on 10'~ Street. As you can see this variance will not take away from the neighborhood but enhance it.
In closing I would request approval of this variance as time is of the essence. Thank you for your time
and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely, , ,,"~
Thomas E. Malot
Encl ~ ~ President
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 Variance approval shall expire in one year, March 17, 1999 unless a building permit
has been issued and construction has commenced and diligently pursued toward
completion.
G:\PLANNING\VARCOA. WPD
.1..
Setbacks from Centerline of 10'h Street
363 10"' Street 46'
317 10"' Street 48'7"
923 Maple 42'3"
901 Cherry Street 38'2"
364 10~' Street 75'
380 10'~ Street 52'3"
405 10~' Street 57'5"
400 10'~ Street 58'5"
410 10'" Street 53'4"
420 10'~ Street 60'
430 10"' Street 57'
365 10'~ Street 60'
These examples are all within 1 block of the subject.property.
CSty of Centt'al Point
EXHIBIT "E't
Planning Deparknent
~.
' I City of Central t'oitt
Fxxr~rT ttF tf
~. Planning DePariment
~.~ W 1~trm l~ Yrna„ ~.~ 11~n CSt~m ,
o~ -~7-~7
ms.~c-i- ~ l o ~}- i D i 5- ~U w,n~9 `i , .~ c,M-~
D'~ '~l~~uh ~ c,.~ cs~ _.
Ccrncs>n~r.Q ~ o,L~z,`}~1- 5~-1-~ c~.Is~l-~cC, ~,
Cc7-vtnt~QC~ vrn~ 17~C.~ Cy ~EGv~~ ~~'~
.~,1` ..sty,-.v ~.Q. av,n w L.o w~ ~ c~
:. ~ o-ry. ~a ~ t ~t s~- --tom- c--.~ c~~ C.~.s~,~,~-~~~
j~ECE1VED ~~
'FEB 271998' ~`` ~° ~"c~
~~~^~-c C_ .,_
CITY OF EENTRAL P691W'C ~~~ ~ to
TIME ~OtZS"~yh /~u ~,
c_P. C ~SO2
C~c,~U - ~O'~ 3a
19
- . S' STREETS-BVTERSECTION ANGLES: Streets shall intersect one anothe City of Central Point
as practical. When intersections of other than ninety degrees are unavoidable; the right- EXHIBIT "G"
a minimum comer radius of thirty feet. Plannlttg Department
II,,S:RADES AND CURVES: -Grades shall not exceed six'percent (696) on m
(12`Yo) on any other street. Minimum grades for streets shall be one-half percent ('/196).. _
than three hundred feet oa major arterials, two hundred feet on secondary arterials or one hundred (100) Ceet on other streets.
FLAG LOT ACCESS AND STANDARDS. Access to Flag lots shall provide a minimum width of twenty (20) feU of
asphaltic concrUe and two (2) inches in compacted depth with a minimum of six (6) inches of 3/4" inch- 0 inch (OSHD) crushed rock
base or equivalent as determined by subgrade test (compacted to a minimum of nine-five percent{95%) maximum density-OSHD
method). Tho subgrade shall be compacted to a minimum of nine-five percent (9596) T-99-74 D.
1.
2.
J SIGHT DISTANCES AND CLEAR VTSJON AREAS_
Intersection Sight Distances in Table J-1 below shall be followed when designing and constructing intersections of streets,
anveways anu x~~~y~.
TABLE J-1
SIGHT DISTANCE AT INTERSECTIONS *
Design Speed M.P.H..(km/h)
20(32) 30(48) 40(ti4) 50(80) 60(97)
MINIMUM CORNER SIGHT DISTANCE • ft(m)
d' and da as roferenoed is Drawing A-4
200(til) 300(91) 400(122) 500(152) ti00(183)
*Cotner sight distance measured from a point of the minor road at least 10 ft. (4.6m) from the edge of the
major road pavement and measured from a height of eye of 3.5 ft. (1.OSm) on the minor road to a height of
object of 4.25 ft. (1.3 m) oa the majof road.
Clear Vision Areas shall be established when designing aad~cotnstrttcting intersections with streets, driveways (property
access) or alleys as shown in Table J-2 below:
Clear vision areas allow the driver of the vehicle to view approaching traffic at intersections with streets and driveways, a
distance which is unobstructed u shown in Drawing A-4 and referred to as 'sight triangle'.
TABLE J 2
Type of Street
Sight Triangle Distance
Tvoe of Intersection Local Collector Secondary Majot
Residential Access 15' 25' S5' (1)
Commercial Access 25' 25' S5, (1)
Industrial Access 55' S5' S5' (1)
Alley.. 15' 25' S5' (1)
Local Street: 25' S5' SS' (1)
Collector Street SS' S5' S5' (l)
Secondary Arterial 55' S5, 55' (1)
Major Artefial (1) (1) (1) (1)
t Deve o r to rout e a ra tc nl;tneermg to y or
*(1 a tc ors apartment may regmre t e App tcan or Pe p
Clear Vision is the event a minimum 55' sight triangle appears to be inadequate.
nwstndch.n,•s x;i 21
SIGHT LINE
55~ SIGHT -
TRIANGLE
1
d
0
a
0
a'
I ~
O
I
I-lo -'-
55~ SIGHTS
TRIANGLE
F'~
SIGHT LINE ~
m
m
\
o
m
a
W
~ ~
~ .
a .
~
e U
J
O
O u
a
22
NOTE;.
FOR SIGHT LINE DISTANCES dl &dz
SEE~Transporfcilon d Trolflc Englneering
Handbook, Second Edlflon f
.. I
I
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
UNIFORM STANDARDS
PUBLIC WORKS~°RCON$TRUCTION
SIGHT DISTANCE
HECKEO' TE' ~~~ ~
~aoVEO= ~ q- 4'
EVISEO~ GATE'
PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM
DATE: March 12, 1998
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Discussion of Proposed Planning Fee Schedule and Fee Increases
Background
The Commission may recall the discussion we had on February 17, 1998. about site plan
approvals and associated fees. I contended that 1) Planning Department fees should be
commensurate with the work performed by staff and 2) 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.
Discussion
Following our meeting in February and in the process of preparing the Department budget, I
discovered the attached list of Central Point Municipal Code Fees that was prepared by the City
Attorney in 1991. This is a fairly complete list with the exception of the Site Plan Fee (Section
17.72.021) that we discussed last month. These are all of the code sections that would have to be
amended to clean things up. It is my understanding that the Building Department has already
removed its fee references from the code as part of the development of their fee schedule.
The Planning Deparhnent has prepared the attached draft of Planning Application Fees for your
consideration and comment. The proposal identifies the Type of Action, corresponding code
section, current and proposed fees and the potential revenue that could be generated given the
trends experienced this year. Proposed fees are either a continuation of existing fees, an estimate
of processing time or a comparable charge from elsewhere in Jackson County.
I would like the Commissioner's feedback regarding the Department's proposal and will be
prepared to answer any questions that you might have at the meeting.
23
LFST OF CPMC FEES
Code Amount
ion Purpose of F e of Fee
Is Fee a Tax
Slnder Measurn_
1.20.040 Annexation Proposal Fee $ 325 No
2.52.010 Dishonored Check Fee $ 5 No
2.52.020D. Copying Public Records.. "Reasonable
3.04.020
Punchboard Wolesaler's Tax cost"
$ 15-300 Annually No
No
3.04.030 Punchboard Operator's Tax $ 20 Annually No
3.08.020 Entertairnnent Device Tax $ 25-50 Annually No
3.12.020 Lien Search Fee $ 10 No
3.16.030 Police Department Fees Varies with
3.16.040
Fire'Department Fees Service
Varies with No
3.20.040
Liquor License Fee service
$ 15-25 No
No
5.04.090 Business License Fee $ 25-175 No
5.06.020 Yard Sale Permit $ 1 No
5.08.020 Public Dance License $ 2 per day or
5.12.040 Electrical Contractor $ 60 per month No
license Fee Unspecified No
5.16.020 Plumbing;Contractor
License Fee $ 25-175 No
5.20.030 Solicitor or Canvasser
Application Fee $ 5 No
5.20.050 Solicitor or Canvasser
License $ 5 per day/
$ 10 per month/
5.24.060
Adult Business License $ 18 per year
$ 200 per qtr. No
No
5.26.030 Close-Out Sale 1_icense $ 5 No
5.28.110 Chose-Out Sale License
Denial - Appeal Fee $ 5 No
5.32.050 Mobile Home Park Fee $ 500 No
5.33.030 Application Fee. for Merchant
Police or Private Investi-
gator License $ 10 No
5.33.090 Merchant Police or Private
Investigator License $ 15 per year No
5.38.060 Drug Paraphernalia License $ 200 No
8.04.120 Assessment for Costs of
Nuisance Abatement Actual cost plus
8.08.020
Assessment for Costs of 10~ for overhead No
Weed Abatement Actual cost plus
overhead
8.20.030 Ambulance Service License (unspecified)
$ 50 plus $25 No
each ambulance No
1 - LIST OF CPMC FEES (050991)
24
,~ '~
8.28.030 Assessment for Costs of Actual cost plus
Drainage Channel Obstruc- overhead
tion Abatement (unspecified). No
10.08.020 Bicycle License Fee $ 1 No
10.12.250 Costs Assessed to Abate Costs of
Abandoned Vehicles Abatement No
10.16.030 Trip Permit-Overweight
Trucks $ 30 No
11.04.100 Public Improvement Assessment Varies No
12.04.030 Sidewalk Construction Permit $:05 lineal ft;
$10 minimum No
12.04.080 Sidewalk Repair Assessment Varies No
12.08.040 Driveway Construction Permit $ 10 No
12.28.020 Vacation Request Fee $ 325 No
13.0'4.010 Water Usage Rates Varies No
13.04.020 Water Usage Rates Varies No
13.04.030. Water Service Deposit $ 10 No
13.04.060 Late Charge.- Water Bill $ 5 No.
13.04.060 Water Reconnection Fee $ 5 No
13.04.070 Water Connection Fee $ 50 plus actual
cost No
13.04.080 Water Connection Fee
(Outside City) $ 135 No
13.04.105 Water Use From Hydrant Fee $ 20 plus usage No
.1.3.08.030. Standby Water Service .Fee $ 5 per month No
13.20.040 Backflow Prevention Device
Permit Fee $ 25 per year No
13.20.050 Backflow Prevention Device
Testing Fee Varies No
14.07.060 Assessment of Costs for
Unlawful Sewage Discharge. Actual Cost No
14.08.030 Industrial Wastewater
Discharge Fees Varies No
14.12.030 Sewer Service Charge $ 8.90 per mo. No
14.12.040 Sewer Service Charge Varies No
14.12.050 Sewer Service Charge Varies No
14.12.060 Sewer Service Charge Varies No
14.12.070 Sewer Service Charge $ 16 per mo. No
14.12.080 Sewer Service Charge Varies No
14.12.090 Sewer Service. Charge Varies N-~
14.12.120 Sewer Service Deposit $ 10 No
15.12.040 Sewer Connection. Fee Actual Cost No
15.12.045 Systems Development Charge
on Sewer Permit Varies No
15.12.080 Cost of Sewer Maintenance Actual Cost No
15.12.340 Plumbing Permit Fees Varies No
15.20.060 Fence-Building Permit $ 2 No
15.20.070 Application for Variance
to Fence Restrictions $ 100 No
15.22.060 Swimming Pool Fee Varies No
15.24.070 Sign Permit Fees Varies No
15.24.140 Cost for Removing Unlawful
Signs Costs incurred No
2 - LIST OF CPMC FEES (050991)
~J
,~
15.24.540 Appeal of Signing Violation
Fee $ 25 No
15.24.550 Application Fee for Signing
Variance, $ 100 No
15.24.610 Costs of Removing Unlawful
Freeway Signs Actual Cost No
15.24.630 Reissuance of Expired Sign
Permit Fee 1/2 of first fee No
15.28.020 Permit to Move,euiiding $ 5
_ (soon'to be $35) No
15.32.050.- Cost of Numbering House Actual Cost No
15.36.020' Mobile Home Installation
Permit Fee $ 5 & up No
15.40.040 Public Works Projects
Review Fee Varies No
16.10.010 Subdivision Tentative Plan
Submission Fee $ 200 No
16.10.015. Subdivision Plans Review Fee Actual Cost No
16.12.020 Subdivision Final Plat
Submission Fee $ 1b per lot No
16.12.070 Assessing Costs of City
Making Subdivision
Improvements Actual. Cost No
16.28.030 Subdivisions.- Fee in Lieu
of Land Dedication for Parks- $ 200 per lot No
16.36.020 Partition Application Fee
and Review Fee $ 200 plus actual
cost of review No
16.40.010 Application for Variance to
Subdivision Ordinance $ 200' No
17.56.040 Application for Designation as
,
Class A Non-Conforming Use
$ 50
No
17.60.190 Home Occupation, Application
Fee $ 25 No
17.68.030 PUD Application Fee Fee set by
City Council No
17.76.011 Conditional Use Permit
Application Fee $ 100 No
17.80.010 Variance Application
(Land Use) $ 100 No
17.88.030 Application for Amendment to
Zoning Text or Map $ 325 No
17x72.021 Site Plan Review Fee $ 200
3 - LIST OF CPMC FEES (050991) ~ Gs
Type of Action
Annexation
Vacation Request
Tent. Subdivision
Minor Land Part.
Final Subdivision
Home Occupation
PUD Application
Site Plan Review (R)
Site Plan Review (C)
Conditional Use
Comp Plan Amend
Variance (P/C)
Variance (staff)
Zone Change
Lot Line Adjustment
Appeals to Council
CPMC
Section
01.20.040
12.28.020
16.10.010
16.10.010
16.12.020
17.60.190
17.68.030
17.72.021 "
17.76.011
17.80.010
17.80.010
17.88.030
City of Central Point
Planning Application Fees
Current Proposed
Fee Fee
$325 $325
$325 $325
$200 $500 + $25/lot
$200 $255
$10/lot $100 + $10/lot
$25 $25
Fee set by City Council
$200 $10/permit
$200 $255
$100 $325
$ -0- $650
$200 $200
$100 $50
$325 $500
$ -0- $325
$ -0- '/2 original fee
a'~l'3
Revenue
$ 650
$ 325
$ 7,500
$ 510
$ 2,440
$ 1,500
$ 2,050
$ 765
$ 975
$ 650
$ 600
$ I50
$ 500
$ 650
$19,265
2'7