Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - July 21, 1998i y i CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA July 21, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 428 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 July 7, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS ~. Page 1-11 A. C°~ Continuation ofPublic Hearing to consider a request by Michael Burton to vary fromthemaximumfenceheightrequirementsonproperiylocatedat 1130Mayfair Place in the R-1-6 zoning district. 12-27 B. '~~ Public Hearing to consider arequest by Stan Henderer to vary from the front yard setback and review a Site Plan facilitating the expansion and remodel of a commercial building onproperty located at 60 North 4th Street inthe C-2 zoning district. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT ,.~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JULY 7, 1998 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Bob Gilkey, Karolyn Johnson. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician, Jim Bennett, City Administrator, Rusty McGrath, Mayor, and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence received will be addressed during the appropriate business items. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to approve the Minutes of June 16, 1998, as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes, Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Continuation of•Public Hearing to review a Site Plan and request for variance from special setback submitted by the Central Point Assembly of rod Church to construct a new sanctuary on propgrty located east of the intersection of North 10"' and Maple Streets in the R-3 zoning district. Commissioner Fish declared a conflict of interest and withdrew to the audience, Tom Humphrey reviewed the application and stated that a variance is now included in the packet along with a revised site plan and a proposal for phasing the church parking areas. The City has also received a landscaping and irrigation plan. The applicant has a letter of authorization from the Department of Transportation allowing the discharge of storm water drainage Into the I-5 system. The applicant is also asking if they can initially gravel the parking lot on the east side of the church in phases 1 and 2 and only re-pave the existing parking area. It City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1998 -Page 2 Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. He stated that on Item 5 in the Planning Department Staff Report, the Public Works Department would like to see A.C. or concrete paving, and would like to see all of the Public Works conditions included in any Planning Commission action. Staff is working with the applicant's engineer on the storm water discharge into the drainage system. Tom Humphrey asked about the possibility of using chip-seal on the parking lots. Lee Brennan stated that chip-seal is acceptable to the Public Works Department instead of paving. However, the life of chip-seal is short. John Ferrington, Associate Pastor, acting as interim agent for the applicant, stated that Jackson County and the housing authority did not see any problem with the church's plans to use the storm drain on the east of their property and the applicant has a verbal agreement. The other partners on the storm drain system have indicated they have received the applicant's request and will give it consideration. He stated that if they are able to gravel or chip-seal the parking lots initially, they anticipate being able to pave Phase 1 as funds are available. Commissioner Johnson asked the applicant that if they were permitted to chip-seal the first phase of the parking lots, would they be able to pave within a year. Mr. Ferrington stated that they would like to do so, but it depends upon the budget and money available. Bill Walton, 318 So. 2"a St., Central Point, suggested that in the parking areas where the street light mounts are located, on 2 feet on each side allow room to plant trees. Use the smaller parking spaces for compact cars. Research indicates this lessens the impact of the sun on the parking lot and the heat diffused to other areas. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 426 approving the Site Plan and request for variance from special setback submitted by the Central Point Assembly of God Church to construct a new sanctuary on property located east of the intersection of North 10"' and Maple Streets in the R-3 zoning district, including the conditions in the Staff Reports, also City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1998 -Page 3 including the use of chip-seal in Phase 1 and giving the applicant a 2 year time limit to pave. Applicant should consider the suggestion of Bill Walton. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Gilkey. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, abstain; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. B. Public Hearing to consider a request by Michael Burton to varv from the maximum fence height requirements on property located at 1130 Mavfair Place in the R-1-6 zoning district. Ken Gerschler reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Applicants want to vary from the City's six foot maximum fence height requirement at the rear of their Mayfair Place property in order to create a more private and secure boundary along an easement they are creating to access a new public park. They would like an 8 foot cedar fence. Lee Brennan stated that is already an easement along the back of that property. The developers, the Moores, recorded that easement before the house was built. Bill Walton, 318 So. 2"d Street, Central Point, asked that the City put up a 6 foot cinder block, capped wall instead of the cedar fence to protect it from pedestrian traffic. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the public hearing in the absence of the applicant to answer questions to the next Commission meeting on July 21, 1998. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. C. Public Hearing to consider applications for Tentative Partition and Site Plan Review to facilitate the construction of a commercial shopping center east f thn F~aoman Road/Oak Street intersection in the C-4 zoning district Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. He stated that the site plan was recently revised which has subsequently affected the landscaping plans and traffic study. A variance from a side yard setback is no longer necessary. The applicants have provided more than adequate parking and are working to reevaluate and/or revise their other plans. The traffic engineer has determined that around-a-bout is not feasible at the Freeman Road/Oak Street intersection Lee Brennan reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. The applicant will have to do a flood study. He stated that the City would like to master plan the areas to the south and one area to the north of the applicant's City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1998 -Page 4 property. Staff looked at the lane configuration and came up with a slightly different configuration. One of the concerns is truck traffic and truck deliveries at the new south entrance. The City will look at a longer queue at Pine Street turning south on 10"'. They will need to accommodate a WD67 truck or RV with a boat. The City will work with the applicant on those issues. The 4-way stop sign will be installed at Hopkins and Freeman. Chuck Martinez, 714 Cardley Ave., #100, agent for the applicant had several concerns: (11 Parking that has been designed is a necessary 12) Truck route facilities and lane geometry: There is a very detailed review of the truck movements. There will not be any truck access at the south entrance. The truck movement would come in and out of the main intersection. The delivery trucks would come in off the main driveway and circulate back. The deliveries to the stores near the south entrance will be front deliveries only; (3) We would like to review the Public Works Staff Report concerning the road widths; (4) Landscaping - we believe in an attractive overall appearance and pride of ownership. The creek will not be changed. Landscaping will be top of bank and the creek will be bridged. Donna Martinez, 254 Freeman Rd., Central Point, was concerned about getting out of her driveway with the increased traffic on Freeman. Discussed another controlled intersection before the shopping center, perhaps at Hopkins. A signal will permit her better ingress/egress to her home. Mayor McGrath stated that he is excited about this area being developed as a shopping center. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adopt Resolution 427 approving the application for Tentative Partition and Site Plan Review to facilitate the construction of a commercial shopping center east of the Freeman Road/Oak Street intersection in the C-4 zoning district, subject to staff comments and staff report conditions and renaming the shopping center "Mingus Creek Plaza". Motion was seconded by Commissioner Fish. ROLL CALL: Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Gilkey, yes; Johnson, yes. VII. MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous items. City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 7, 1998 -Page 5 VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Gilkey made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 17, 1998 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Continuation.of Public Hearing to consider a request by Michael Burtonto vary from the maximum fence height requirements ' Planning staff are scheduled to meet with the Burtons, their neighbors and Bret Moore on Monday evening to come up with a strategy for gaining access to the City's new Southeast Park. This could result in additional requests for variance from fence heights, changes in fence construction materials or obviate the need to proceed with the Burton's request altogether. The Commission will be brought up to date on Tuesday night during their regularly schedule meeting. 1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 7, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Variance tafence height requirements at 1130 Mayfair Place (372W12CB Tax Lot 7600): licant/ Owner: Michael Burton 1130 Mayfair Place Central Point, Oregon 97502 ent• Bret Moore 1461 E. McAndrews Road Medford, Oregon 97504 Summar,~ The Burtons wish to vary from the City's six foot maximum fence height requirement at the rear of their Mayfair Place property in order to create a more private and secure boundary along an easement they are creating to access a new public park (refer to Exhibits A&C) The subject parcel is zoned R-1, Residential Single-Family. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Plahning 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 LawLaw: CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances Discussion• The Commission may recall its review and approval of Beall Estates III when the development of a 2 acre park was discussed and approved as part of the subdivision. The following is an excerpt from the staff report dated May 6, 1997: The applicants (Noel and Bret Moore) will develop the park to City standards and provide a turn key facility for residents of the area. The City will then purchase the developed park from the applicants. The City will also work with adjacent property owners to provide access to the new park for city residents on the other side of Elk Creek. ~. ~..~ 2 The fence variance that the Burtons are applying for creates more privacy for them while facilitating access to the new City park. CPMC 15.20.040 states that the maximum height for fences on or along the back lot line shall be six feet. The Burtons would like to vary 2 feet from this requirement and build an 8 foot cedar fence 86 feet in length. They have stipulated that the height and material are the only conditions that they can accept and they have authorized Bret Moore to act on their behalf. If approved the fence would serve to buffer their back yard from a 6 to 10 foot pedestrian access easement from Hampton Drive and ultimately to the new pazk. Without direct access from Hampton, residents wishing to get to the park would either have to travel south to Beall Road and then north on Wedgewood Lane or northeast to Glengrove and then south on Wedgewood. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law A vaziance may be granted if findings aze made as follows: 1. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or If the applicants are Alin to grant public access across heir property via an easement and the sub nt foot and bicycle traffic could not be buffered (by and eight foot fence) then this could be considered an invasion of privacy and an unnecessary hardship. .~, - 2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following. . considerations do not apply to the requested application: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city, If approved, the variance would subsequently provide an access from Hampton Drive into the proposed southeast park. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, Access to a park facility is a benefit to property owners and can lead to the increased desirability of this neighborhood. c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, Residents in the area would be able to access the proposed par foot or by bicycle directly instead of traveling south to Beall Lane which is not s s fe a route. d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, The construction of the eight foot cedar fence would provide privacy and increased security for the applicant. -~~ 3 l e e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The City Iras received only one phone call regarding this proposal and that was to clarify the Burton's request for a variance. There has been no other correspondence either in favor of or opposed to the proposal. £ The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zoning district. The height and construction material of the proposed fence is consistent with municipal regulations in the Residential Single-Family zoning district. 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 ofapproval; 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. xhibits• A. Location Map B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Application Package D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions A:\98043. W PD ~~~ 4 l 1 I l d I I I I / °rn°` SHELTERWOOD OR . r r r D Z m r~ NI1F E CT p (~tq of Cetttril Euint N ~~xr~r~r «A~t -+ Planning DePu'hnenC n MARILLEE y b O H -~ ~~ D ~ ~ ~ ~ O N fTl y r r .. ,. . ~ T 1 City of Central Point PX_ANNXNG DEPARTMENT Toni Humphrey AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: June 16, 1998 Meeting Date: Time: Place: July 7,1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall I55 South Second Street. Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING City of Central Pofnt ~XHI3~TT tt$ tt Planning Department' At the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Fence Variance at 1130 Mayfair Place, on Tax Lot 7600 of Jackson'County Assessment Plat 37 2W 12CB. The subject parcelis located in an R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 15 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to fence height, material requirements, and variance procedures. 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, July 7, 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. J ~ 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, l55 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at l5 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. ;< ,e' Subject Property OR 97502 V~ 7 APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT~,~ 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Addre City: P01NT Telephone: Business: Residence: g~% S~9/ 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name: ~~T J~ooa2.~" Address: /6// ~ £ ~~i4,,.oecwt ,L`onn city: ®~'l~i~ e~ ~sa,y Telephone: Business: Residence: 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet if More Than One) Name: /l4ii~~o.~ ~r-wiz/..Fig /~x~r~a~, Address: fJ3~~ Aga ~~c~ City: ~1-saS25~c /~i~r Telephone: Business: Residence: ~Y SZ9/ 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Township: 3 ~ Range: a-~^~ Section: LoZ G~ Tax Lot(s): 7 ~~ Zoning District: ~l Total Acreage: 28 f~G,ye.- General Description of Variance: ,~Ljo/~cA~.T i!°.l~utrYY ,~Q~~rs~i~- 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS „[~]~ This Application Form ~, ,[~ Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent [ ] Application Fee ($200.00) awv ~~ in Application Process j.]' Plot Plan & Elevations Drawn to [ ] Findings (Addressing Criteria in Section 15.20.080 of the Scale (10 Sets) Central Point Municipal Code) we "'`f U,.,fe /~,,y ,f ~, p, ji]r One Copy of a Reduced Plot Plan & (~ Legal Description of the Property l Elevations (8 1/2" x 11") {-oT 18.3J Fors+~ Glen Sub,(,uitto~~ P/~~Se B 6. I HEREBY STATE THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I certify that I am the `. [ ]Pro erty Owner or `.]~ Authorized Agent of the Owner of the proposed --~~ project site Signature: /?f~ _ Date: ~"~~~ `l~ . .. Q Planning Department Exhibit C ~,1,, 1 ~99a. MaY-16-1999 13t4d W L MJUI~ (TI~Si ~+a rrq .wna r.ba Mjchad sad $r!b- $urtoa iereby greet permlrtoa In Iirct Moore to set ttl1 ehofr e<ert !or tie p~trpoto of app~i+~g for • fe~oe voratsea st 2l3B Mst7ttter Ptwoe, Ctatnt point, Osepun• G ~/~~-~ Mkitpel BRroor ~) a~ 5-a s ~~ r.te rice PERMISSION IS GRANTED SOLELY ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ONLY .AN EIGHT FOOT CEDAR FENCE WILL BE ACCEPTABLE FOR 1130 MAYFAIR PLACE, CENTRAL POINT, OREGON. IF THIS WILL NOT BE NEGOTIATED ON OUR BEHALF, PERMISSION TO BRET MOORE IS RESCINDED. TOTFk. P.81 -~ 9 ~((i, ~ .~ --. ~ ~~Go'oos6p ~-8. t~ -~ - - - ~SfY6 D J ~_ ~ _. Ga+~cRe~ A,ei~~ E ~~ ~~ \4 y M N ~ \ I 53~ I //NtwiFico,¢ ~ aaaNSpac+s ro ~~ f I 1' 1 /o' pu.E GG.r~ ~~~~" Z 8 3 - t2 /OQ~ST GLfiv ;,~,gj~///S/o./ GlK/~ V //~O /~//Qr'FA/R ~ t,nGF ScAUF : / ~~= 20 i~~y mA.s=~e "10 EXHIBIT D PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OP APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Variance shall expire in one year on July 7, 1999 unless a fence permit has been issued and construction has commenced and diligently progressed toward completion. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. In the event that park access across the property is discontinued and the fence is replaced, it shall be replaced with one of standard height. l .. i l PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 21, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review and Variance from Front Setback Requirements at 60 North 4th Street (37 2W 02CC Tax Lot 1500) A lic nt Stan Henderer Owner: 60 North 4th Street Central Point, OR 97502 en • Doug Skelton Skelton, Straus & Seibert Architects 26 Hawthorne Medford, Oregon 97504 o e Description/ 37 2W 02CC Tax Lot 1500- 0.08 acres onin C-2, Commercial-Professional District umma The applicant would like the Commission to review a site plan for the remodel and minor expansion of an existing commercial business. The proposal expands the building into the front yard'setback which also requires a zone variance. Upon further The remodel is intended to improve the overall appearance, function and internal efficiency of the business and to make it ADA accessible. uthori 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 Site Plan Review. Notice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B). ~olicable Law CPMC 17.36.010 et seq.- C-2, Commercial-Professional District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq: General Regulations CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval ~~ Discussion The applicant, Stan Henderer owns the State Farm insurance business at 60 North 4th street and would like to renovate the exterior of the building and construct a 160 square foot addition to better serve his customers. To proceed with the improvements, Mr Henderer has requested a Variance from the minimum front yard setback required in the C-2, Commercial-Professional District and a review of the proposed site plan. CPMC 17.36.050 (D) requires front yard setbacks to be a minimum of five feet between the front property line and any buildings, structures or parking areas. The front yard is intended to be planted with lawn, trees, shrubs, flowers or other suitable landscaping materials. Currently, the building is located approximately 6 feet from the property line and is separated from an adjoining alleyway by a small paved parking area. The current and proposed building modifications do not violate the sight vision requirements in the public works standards. The Public Works Department suspects that the proposed site plan encroaches into the public right- of-way along 4th Street by a few inches. However, this can be rectified by requiring that any new construction be entirely within the property boundaries. The Building Department has stated that the type of construction may also determine the final setback from the property line (refer to Exhibit E). The beauty shop to the south and the Laundromat to the north are both positioned within close proximity of the sidewalk. If the Variance from the front yard setback and,the site plan are approved, the applicant will add 160 square feet to the front of the building. The addition would include a wheelchair accessible ramp that meets ADA specifications, anew building entrance and a 60 square foot shrub planter area. The additional area would also allow the internal rearrangement of office space so that it is used more efficiently. The brick exterior of the building would be covered with an exterior finish stucco system and new energy efficient windows would be installed.. One other issue that has been raised since the submission of Mr. Henderer's application(s) is whether a second variance should be considered as it relates to the City's parking design requirements (CPMC 17.64.100.E.3). According to the code, parking spaces for this commercial use have to be designed so that no backing movements are made within a public right-of--way, in this case an alley. The Commission is aware that the applicant's existing parking layout consists of 5 spaces, each of which back into the alley. The only changes being proposed to on-site parking are the restriping of the existing 5 spaces to accommodate a handicapped space that conforms the building code requirements. In other words, the first three spaces from North 4th Street are being widened so that the third and middle space can be properly designated as a handicapped space. There is no reasonable way to change the existing parking configuration to comply with the municipal code. If the Commission believes that a second variance is warranted under the circumstances, staff is confident that findings can be made to legitimize the. parking layout, 13 Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Site Plan Review In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040: A. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and,in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The, Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The site plan depicts-the installation of an approximately five foot by 12 foot planter along Fourth Street. Currently there isn't any landscaping in front of other commercial buildings in the immediate vicinity. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The proposed construction and requested variance will not interfere with the clear vision triangle for the adjoining alley way. Access to the site will remain the same. ;~: C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The applicant proposes four standard parking spaces and one for disabled patrons. .The existing spaces will be reconfigured to accommodate a legitimate handicapped space. Five parking spaces have been provided. consistent with CPMC requirements. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traffic control signs or devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ The elevations depict three surface signs with approximate dimensions of 3 '/z feet. by 14 feet. These signs will not conflict with traffic control signs or other commercial signs in the immediate area. E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety of life, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ Approval of the site plan will be subject to the recommendations of Jackson County Fire District Number 3. ., ~ ~ 14 F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The project meets the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code. G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ^ The proposed modifications to the structure would be an aesthetic improvement to the building and the neighborhood. Variance A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as beautification or safety. ^ The proposed modifications will improve the aesthetics of the current structure and the neighborhood and provide ADA access to the business. 2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. ^ The requested Variance and proposed modifications wilt not have any anticipated adverse impacts to adjoining businesses located along Fourth Street. The City has received a positive response from a neighboring business,(see Exhibit C). If anything, the improvements could provide added incentive for other businesses to make similar improvements. 3. The Variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. ^ The property will continue to be used as a professional office which will be more accessible to all of its customers. The building remodel will introduce new landscaping where there currently is none. 4. Circumstances affecYthe property that do not apply to other property in the same zoning district. ^ The existing lot size is substandard according to the existing zoning requirements. The businesses located on either side of the subject property have setbacks that are located closer to Fourth Street than the minimum requirement. 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicants' own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ^ The records of the Jackson County Assessor indicate that Mr. Henderer purchased the building in December of 1997. 1.5 ., . Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No.~ approving the Site Plan and zone variance subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment D ); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan and zone variance; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan and zone variance at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Application and Exhibits submitted by Doug Skelton B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Correspondence D. Planning Department Conditions E. Public Works Staff Report 16 a APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE l~EC~~IVEt~ , City of Central Point Planning Department ~~N 26 1998' Attachment A APPLICANT ' A el fZ. CI Y Or- CENTF..gt. Epptr TI ~ DATL'S"rAMP 'b1't'I"cE~7Sti'aRLV"'.'-~ City:LgUraau.~D~~r State: D~2, Zip Code: 4'75DZ _ Telephone: Business:.~~~~ 38D~ Residence: ~~~.. ~~ ~ I 2. AGENT INFORMATION B G'lRT" 3. City: M'~ DFo a D State: O ~ Zip Code: q'7 ~D y Telephone: Business: `77 g- 1tt3~3 Resideice^ OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One) City: (~ ~ t,~1'a,n ~., 1`-'~~..~T State: C~r2. Zip Code: ~'71yp 2, Telephone: Business: ~~ ~~ X30 ~ Residence: ~~ , 53~ f 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Township: 3 7 Range: 2~~ Section: ~ GG. Tax Lot(s): Zoning District: C " Z General Description of Variance: JLv~1 k'wwt -hAe,. G ~ ~. ~-w~n~t- s.-a-b•-<-t~- ~.a.~J~o~.w~c'~w~i S~c'E 11 'afo O~ 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS 4" This Application Form. ~ Application Fee ($200.00). C~ Site Plan and Elevations Drawn to Scale (10 Sets). ~ Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. Q" One copy of a reduced Site Plan and Elevations (8 %i x 11). ~ Legal Description of the Property. d Findings (Addressing Criteria in Section 17.80 of the Central Point Municipal Code). Letter of project description. 6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWL~ED~GE. [ certify that I am the : L'd"property Owner or 1 ~ ~ Authorized Agent of the Owner ~,~ FINDINGS FOR ZONING VARIANCE FOR PROPOSED OFFICI AT 60 NORTH 4T" STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OREGuN CIty of Centx~l Fufi-it EXHIBIT ~'A'f Ptanntng Depar(men't The proposed property improvements and variance request will comply with all of the criteria for consideration for granting a variance (City of Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.8Q, D.) as follows: 'The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City, such as beautification or safety.' The proposed project will improve the properly appearance and unify the elements of the existing stnacture and present a fapade compatible to and more cohesive with the downtown commercial area. An old unattractive asphalt area in front of the existing building would be eliminated. The design will present cleaner more attractive lines incorporating a new exterior finish (EIFS) stucco system and a planter unit and more interesting fagade with bigger windows and off-set entry. 2. `The Variance will not have any signipcant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood.' This is true, in fact the project will enhance the appearance and cohesiveness of the neighborhood by making the building to street relationship more like its neighbors. "" 3. `The Variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone - ~- _- district.' The existing use is approved for the zone district and the variance will allow better utilization of the property. 4. `Ciroumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district.' The property is located near Pine Street where buildings are traditionally built flush to the property line. 5. `The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicants' own actions, nor the actions of the applicants' agents, employees or family rYiembers.' The existing building is in compliance, the variance is requested far proposed improvements to the property, 18 PROJECT DESCRIPTION APPLICANT INFORMATION. SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION City of Central Point Planning Department RECEfVE®` JUN 2G 1998' ITY OF CENTRAL POIN IME OFFICE USE ONLY City: (:'~~,ta e ~ ~o~~+r State: D2 Zip Code: Telephone: Business: ~o~ll-. 33 [91 Residence: 2. AGENT INFORMATION /' Name:DouL, ~KEL; cN 1 SKI-Lrn~,.~7" City: '1./1 ~ ~rr~ d~ State: d lZ. Zip Code: ~~d ll Telephone: Business: '7 7. A,._~ ~ ~ 3 Residence: ~ 3. O WNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One) Name:l7't'Ati~ 1-~~l»~xs~? rf /1'lav~e h`e~c~ Address: 7!~ M,e~trari~/ G''t-. City:_ C~~Yrt,o ~. PoI ~'r State: O (Z Zip Telephone: Business: !~(al~ ~ 33 D ( Residence:~~ 4. TypeofDevelopment: U f~tT'[o IFt Township: 37 Range:~yL Sectioni O 2 G G ax Lot(s): I ~D~ Address: !o d 1. I ~ ~- {~~ `i'l'~I' Gam-- t~i4r ~ T' Zoning District: ProjectAoreage: ~' 3 $Od ~~ _ ~t-_ Number of Dwelling Units Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage Number of Parking Spaces: _ REQUIRED SUBMITTALS, d This Application Form. t3' 6. Application Fee ($200.00~~l6>r ZoNt uv VA~ l A~~ Site Plan Drawn to Scale (10 copres . Letter of Project Description. ^ Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. t3' Reduced Copies (8 %2 x 11) of the Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans (1 copy Ea.). ^ Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies). I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED IN THE ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. ~. I certify that I am the : ~ Property Owner or Sale Area Sq. Footage Authorized Agent of the Owner = Gross Floor Area l~ Legal Description. /~ ~ ~ l~the proposed project site. :, , PROPOSED OFFICE ADDITION & REMODEL AT 60 NORTH 4T" STREET, CENTRAL POINT, OREGON PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposed property includes the following elements: 7) Add approximately 160 sq ff to the front of the existing insurance office: This will provide additional space for a growing locally owned business. 2) Align the front of the addition with the front property line which would be consistent with most building storefronts in the downtown commercial area. 3) Provide a 12' long landscape planter area in the front building cut-out area to serve as a buffer between the sidewalk and building reception area and to help make the transition at the approximately 20° grade change from the existing city sidewalk to the existing building finish floor. 4) Refinish the building exterior with. an insulated stucco finish system, provide new insulated windows and create a more attractive and visually cohesive exterior fapade. 5) Accommodate ADA handicapped accessibility standards for access to and within the building. 6) Remodel the interior to provide for greater efficiency of space, energy efficiency, - and more pleasant working conditions. 20 -PARKING WHEEL 60~ STOPS T T W z ,,, ~. ~ ~ >z ~o ~ ~ z =o cLa~ wK+ Q J ~ - ~.•.~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z o ~ x. m Il-I W : _ Z Q w Z ~, u O cf Q ~ , ~ 1-~ ~n a F- W _ ~ Q- u~ ~IDEWALK 12'-0" 4th ST1? EET W ~I~~ i~I~AN O°o° SCALE: I"=10'-O" ~ , _,.,_ OFFICE ADDITION AND REMODEL FOR STAN NENDERER sxffiaox,sixni,s~s~mcr .+xcamsc~.+rromnr~s 60 NOR74-I 4th STREET ~..~,~a "~""'~"`~`~`°"°'°""°"""g"am'"'"' CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 6-10-q8 1 of 2. 21 EXIBTING - fIRE WALL BEHIND E%IBTING GRADE / WEST ELEVATION sca~.~: ,/pll _,I_0~I ~- WALK 91APE 1.20 SOUTH ELEVATION S~A~E: iial~_,~_o~l ...., OFFIGE ADDITION AND REMODEL ,FOR STAN NENDERER sxmmx.srxnus~ssmmcr nxcamacrsnxoruxntmes 60 NORTH 4th STREET >®avs.urmwwx cartnimaAtr~s "~"'°'"°°""~'~'°~°'°`"'°"`""`"""°W"""""` CENTRAL. POINT, OREGON 6-10-q8 2 OF j 22 City of Central' Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting cYty orCetttral Point Date of Notice: June 30,1998 EXHI~I.T rtB tt . Planning Department Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING July 21, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon At the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Variance to the front yard setback at 60 North Fourth Street: The Commission will also review the Site Plan for a remodel ofthe existing commercial office. The subject property is located on Tax Lot 1500 of Assessment Plat 37 2W 02CC in aCommercial-Professional (C-2) zoning district. CRITERIA 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 proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 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, July 21, 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. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 2 :~ 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 l5 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 Variance and Site Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. =, .. e~ ~ yp`P~e \\\i~i~' 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 24 337 EAST PINE STREET CENTRAL POINT, OREGON97502 PHONE (541) 664.1878 FAX (541) 664.8314 800-664- 1 878 ~ent~ra~ point ~~o~ist ~r c~ji f is Fittp//www. kd.com/centralpoi ntflori st ~~f ~~„~ Attachment C . , 426 W. 6TH ST. MED FO RD, OREGON 97501 PHONE(541) 772-1131 FAX (5411 664-8314 800-664- 1 878 -zf~~~~ 25 ATTACHMENT D PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on July 21, 1999 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 30 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty Code. The remodel and building expansion will be completed entirely within the boundaries of the subject property. The applicant shall verify and receive confirmation from the Public Works Department of the exact location of the publicright-of--way and their corresponding property line.. 26 Attachment E ~. BUILDING DEPARTMENT PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW 1ff tOVTN tFGOND R CENTIUL tO1NT~ OR Qtt3 ttNl2f OWNER:-Stan /Marie Henderer ADDRESS: 60 North 4th Street ' OCCUPANCY AREA ALLOWABLE ALLOWABLE TYPE OF FLOOR AREA' ` AREA INCREASE CONSTRUCTION B Approx. 1300 S.F. 8,000 S.F. Unknown SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS: 'fhe site plan as submitted is approvable. Two sets of construction plans must be submitted and approved by the city planning, public works and building departments before a permit can be issued !~~E OF~'7JS~v~o,~,o /19f~ 4`E"7~i~v,i,vt= .s~-Tl,~~K 3B P~~PE,IZTy M~. 27 CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 21, 1998 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Angela Curtis, Jan Dunlap, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyn Johnson. Bob Gilkey was absent. Also present were Tom Humphrey, Planning, Director, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician, and Arlene LaRosa, Public Works Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Minutes of July 7, 1998, as written. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Foster. ROLL CALL: Curtis, abstain; Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Johnson, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances VI. BUSINESS A. Continu atio n of Public Hearing to co nsider a re quest b y Michael Burton to v arv from the maximum fe nce heigh t require ments on prooert y loc ated at 1130 Mayfair Pl ace in the R-1-6 z oning district. Tom Humphrey gave the Commission a summary of a meeting on July 20, 1998, attended by Michael Burton, Tiffany Smith, and Mark Solomon, the three property owners instrumental in developing an access to the Southwest park. Everyone in attendance was in favor of having an access to the park across their property with some stipulations: (1) they would prefer a block wall 7'4" high, and all were opposed to chain link fence with slats. Privacy is important to each of the families. (2) actual property acquisition was more acceptable than an easement. Monetary compensation was discussed but property would be relinquished if the City paid for the block wall. 131 There was a willingness to give up more property to have a net width of 6 foot for the access path. Bret Moore agreed to have a surveyor ~> ) City of Central Point ~ Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1998 -Page 2 design and stake-where the wall would go to show how much land would need to be acquired. Bret Moore would like the Planning Commission to provide a blanket variance for each of these three lots and leave the specifics of property acquisition to the City Council. Bret Moore, 1243 Looking Glass Way, Central Point, agent for the Buttons, stated that the main issue is allowing a taller fence to provide more privacy. Tom stated they would have to renotice for the other two properties concerned before a blanket variance can be decided upon by the Planning Commission. The commission discussed the height of the fence and agreed that it needed to be higher than 6 toot, possibly 7'4" in height. Commissioner Fish made a motion to have the neighbors noticed for the two additional properties, at 1134 Mayfair Place and 1158 Hampton Drive, and to continue the public hearing until the next scheduled Planning Commission. Commissioner Curtis seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the motion passed. B. P~~hlic Hearing to consider a request by Stan Henderer to vary from the front yard setback and review a Site Plan facilitating the expansion and remodel of a commercial building on orooerty located at 60 North 4th Street in the C-2 zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications. Commissioner Fish stated that the applicant is her insurance agent but they have had no conversations concerning the application. Commissioner Johnson stated that the applicant called her to ask her information about the meeting but the application was not discussed. Tom Humphrey reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. This is for the remodel and minor expansion of an existing commercial business. The intent of the applicant is to improve the overall appearance, function and internal efficiency of the business and make it ADA functional. Because of an uncertainty about building modifications encroaching on the right-of-way a few inches, a condition has been recommended that any new construction must be entirely within the property boundary. A second variance may need City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1998 -Page 3 to be considered for the parking in the alley. The expansion of the building will not impact the current parking arrangements; however they do back out into a public right-of-way (the alley). A note was received from Central Point Florist stating their support of the application. Lee Brennan stated that Public Work's concerns are: (1) the vehicles parking in the alley and backing into the alley. The alley has a lot of traffic; however, Public Work's recommendation would be that the commission grant a variance for backing out into the alley. (2) the area between the existing sidewalk and back of the curb creates a slip and trip hazard. Public Works is requesting the applicant improve that portion by placing concrete in it. If the whole sidewalk has to be replaced, the city would pay for the replacing of the sidewalk and the applicant would replace the portion between the sidewalk and the curb; (3) the applicant owns half of the paved area to the north of the proposed project; the laundromat owns the other half. Our concern is the approach (apron), does not meet ADA standards or City standards. The applicant needs to pay for one-half the apron and the City will pay for the other half or persuade the laundromat to pay for half or require reimbursement if the laundromat redevelops the property later. Stan Renderer, 60 No'. 4"' Street, Central Point, applicant, stated that he would like the option to defer the improvements suggested by Public Works for two years. He stated his first goal is to take care of the ADA requirements and remodel to make the building more functional. Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 428, approving the request by Stan Renderer to vary from the front yard setback and approve a Site Plan facilitating the expansion and remodel of a commercial building on property located at 60 North 4"' Street in the C-2 zoning district, including the written and verbal conditions of the staff reports; approve a variance for the preexisting parking, and approve the possibility of deferring the payment for the extra concrete work required by Public Works for two years. Commissioner Dunlap seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Curtis, yes; Dunlap, yes; Fish, yes; Foster, yes; Johnson, yes. ,) City of Central Point ~ Planning Commission Minutes July 21, 1998 -Page 4 VII. MISCELLANEOUS Tom Humphrey discussed further agendas. Tom suggested going to one meeting a month beginning in August. Tom noted that at the last meeting the shopping center was renamed "Mingus Creek Plaza" However, the previous owners, in memory of their mother, wanted to call it "Mountain View Plaza". The applicants wanted to ask the commission if they would reconsider the name for the shopping center and call it "Mountain View Plaza". VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adjourn. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Curtis. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ' ~ City of Central Point EXHIBIT "B" Planning Department PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: July 21, 1998 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director SUBJECT: Southeast Park Access Meeting with Mayfair Place/Hampton Drive Residents On Monday evening City Planning Staff met with General Contractor Bret Moore, Mike & Erika Burton, Mark Soloman and Tiffany Smith regarding the acquisition of an easement or right-of--way from each of their lots: The goal being to gain public access to a new City Park from Forest Glen and Hampton Drives. The following is a summary of our discussion. All those in attendance were in favor and not opposed to public park access across their property with the following stipulations/requests: 1) A block wall is preferred to a cedar fence and all were opposed to a chain link fence with slats. A T 4" height was acceptable as it is consistenYwith nine layers of concrete block and would afford ample privacy. 2) The general consensus of the group was that actual property acquisition by the City is more acceptable than paying taxes on property that they have no control over and from which others receive benefit. Mr. Soloman would like the City to consider monetary,compensation, others were willing to relinquish their property if the City paid for a block wall. 3) The actual placement of a bridge will help to determine the actual angle of the path and who gives up property and how much of it: All agreed on a net six foot wide path (a block wall would necessitate a seven foot wide right-of--way) and the Burton's would be willing to relinquish a little more as Ms. Smith wishes to maintain a side yard setback the length of her garage. She would also like to protect the oak trees at the back of her lot. 4) Bret Moore agreed to have a surveyor define (map and stake) a route for the bike/pedestrian path and requested that the City proceed with a blanket variance for the three lots in order to accommodate it wall or fence height greater than six feet. 5) Everyone hoped that work would begin as soon as possible as they each have plans for their back yards. s ~~ ~ , 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 may be purchased for 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 reviewthe applications, and technical staffreports; hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents; and discuss issues relative to 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 Variance. City regulations provide that the .Central Point City Council be informed about all.Planning Commission decisions. Subject Property~y~ ~~~ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 5 1 luulllllb' 1JGpiil LllLG1IL arty of Ce)'2t~~al P dint Exhibit A PLl1NNXNG DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: July 27, 1998 Meeting Date: August 18, 1998 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING Atthe above place and time, the Central PointPlanning Commissionwill reviewapplications for aFence ` Variance on Tax Lots 7500,7600,and7700,oftheJacksonCountyAssessmentPlatmap372W12CB. The addresses on 1130 and 1134 Mayfair Place and 1158 Hampton Drive are located in an R-1-6, Residential Single Family Zoning District. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 15 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to fence height, material requirements, and variance procedures. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Anyperson interested incommentingontheabove-menflonedlandusedecisionmay submitwritten comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, August 18, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155South 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 expirationofthecommentperiodnotedabove. Any testimony and written commentsaboutthe decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated cleazly to the Planning Commission. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ___ q - /'~ / / ~ ~ d The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, The, construction of a wall or fence in excess of six feet would provide better privacy and increased security for the applicants. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The City has received only one phone call regarding the proposal and that was to clarify the Burton's request for a variance. A subsequent meeting took place with neighboring property owners who support. the proposal and become part of the variance request. £ The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. Approval of the variance will encourage effected property owners to participate in in the development of pedestrian access to a new City park, uses that are both consistent with municipal regulations in the Residential Single- Family zoning district. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission.talce one of the following actions: L .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. hibits• A. Notice of Public Hearing and Location Map B. Planning Department Memorandum dated July 21, 1998 C. Planning Department Recommended Conditions G:U'LANNING\98043B. W PD 3 ~ ; \;/'7 ~':2,~ ,.~.~ 3922 .1, 6~ ~-MAYFAIR-PLACE- .,. t I ' ~ vnv. t~a~ v ~x ~~~ .N -- .. 7600 Z o2e ac ~ - ~j~ .~ Q 2e3 .ss ,r r~1. t 5 o~ ?500 0.30 Ac i~~~ ,, 7400 0.24,Ac~d j 281 700 ?800 0.22 Ac 0.28 Ac 0 13y ~ o~ ~ ` ~. l 13 284 .9S ---!~s.t~f - 28 2 c ~y ~ 3~. y, ?'~QQ 0.29 Ac ~ ~ ~ , EXHIBIT C PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I. The approval of the variance shall expire in one year on August 18, 1999 unless a fence permit has been issued and construction has commenced and diligently progressed toward completion. 2: Construction must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. Approval of this variance is contingent upon the City's successful acquisition of the private property identified in this application which is intended for use as a pedestrian access to a new City Park. G:\PLANNING\98043B. W PD v