Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - August 3, 1998r ~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 3,1999, - 7:00 p.m, 63 ~3 ~ Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 459 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL City Planning Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyne Johnson, John LeGros, Paul Lunte and Wayne Riggs III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES A. Review and approval of July 20, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS ,. Page 1-13° -A. Continuationofpublichearingtoconsiderasiteplan introduced by Barbara and Stephen Brown to modify an existing business at 841 E. Pine Street for a drive up window. The subject property is located in the C-4 Tourist and Office -- • -.- _~• - Professional zoning district. 14 - 19 B. Consideration of a request by the LDS Church to vary from the fence requirements ofthe Central Point Municipal Code in order to insure adequate on-site security and uniform temple architecture. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Taylor and Grant Roads. 20-22 C. ConsiderationofproposedchangestotheCentralPointMunicipalCode,Section 17.60.030 regarding accessory buildings. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 20, 1999 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:10 P.M. II. Roll Call: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, John LeGros, Paul Lunte, and Wayne Riggs. Don Foster and Karolyn Johnson were absent. From the Jackson County Planning Commission: Leon Hofford, Reeve Hennion, Don Greene, Larry Fowler, and Debbie Crouse. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, Matt Samitore, Planning Technician, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, Laurel Kuntz, Jackson County Planning Director and Steve Rinkle, County Counsel. III. CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence was received from Oregon Department of Transportation and Jackson County Roads and will be discussed as part of business item A. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for July 6, 1999 meeting as presented. Commissioner LeGros seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes: LeGros, yes: Lunte, abstain: Riggs, yes. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Joint nublic hearine of the Central Point and Jackson County Plannine Cdrietmissions to consider an amendment to Central Point's Urban Growth Boundar (~UGBLY adding 32 99 acres and establishing commercial and open space comprehensive nlan man designations The subject pronerty is located on the east and west sides of Peninger Road and North of East Pine Street. There were no-exparte communications or conflicts of interest. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the City of Central Point Planning Staff ,( Planning Commission Minutes July 20'h, 1999 Page 2 Report. The applicants, Jackson County; Naumes, Inc.; and Oregon Department of Transportation, are proposing changes that would result in the addition of approximately 33 acres to the City's UGB. The addition to the UGB will create approximately 19 acres of commercial land with the designation of C-4 and 14 acres to be designated as Open Space/Greenway. The property is located in the vicinity of East Pine Street and N. Peninger Road. As required when amending the Urban Growth Boundary a joint Planning Commission meeting must be held. The purpose of this meeting is to review the staff report(s) and public testimony, and recommend an appropriate action to the Central Point City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissionera~lso, as required, a Notice of Proposed Amendment has to been sent to the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DECD). DECD, has 45 days to review and comment on the proposal before any final action can be taken. Mr. Humphrey and Ms. Kuntz both indicated that at the time there is no response from DECD or the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). Mr. Humphrey also noted that DECD is requesting the City of Central Point submit its buildable land inventory before the final hearing. Several of the commissioners had questions regarding the development and if all the neighbors, especially the Jackson County Fair had been contacted. Ms. Kuntz indicated that the Fair Board has approved of the development and Mr. Humphrey identified where the proposed development would occur if approved. Craig Stone, agent for Naumes Inc., addressed the Joint Commission on the development. Mr. Stone indicated that the Fair board enthusiastically supports a new commercial development in the area because any new development will help with their entrepreneurial enterprises. Mr. Stone stated that the Naumes are a farming business. They do not usually develop land, but this property is no longer suited to producing crops. It is surrounded on three sides by existing or potential development. Re-zoning of the land will only change 19 acres, in which a hotel would be located. The other land will continue to be Open Space. Mr. Stone mentioned that as the Expo continues to grow a commercial hotel will have to be placed somewhere in the vicinity. Commissioner LeGros asked Ivlr. Stone and Mr. Humphrey how big the Bear Creek Greenway in this area will be. Mr. Stone indicated that the area is roughly 13 acres, but can be amended to add more if needed. Planning Commission Minutes July 20"', 1999 Page 3 Commissioner Hennion asked for more specific reasons why farming is not a viable option for the area, he also asked for a detailed map or report summarizing the amount of commercial land in Central Point, and he asked what is ODOT's role in this process. Mr. Stone stated that a detailed Memo will be presented with the next report and that ODOT would serve as both an applicant and as an affected state agency. Mr. Humphrey noted the exact amount of vacant commercial land available in Central Point and also noted that a Buildable Lands Inventory Report will be available soon. Mark Ashby, of ODOT Region 3, spoke in opposition to any immediate action on this proposal. Mr. Ashby noted that ODOT had only known of the. UGB expansion for two days and would need time to study the report. He suggested that ODOT should be given time to analyze data on traffic flow in the region and other concerns on this item. He noted that a comprehensive traffic impact study would have to be completed for this site. Several Commissioners asked if he had read the previous report and asked for guidelines for a study. Mr. Ashby noted that the applicants should get in contact with the ODOT traffic engineering department and devise a plan. Mr. Stone again addressed the Commission about the traffic study and talked about the qualitative versus quantitative land available in Central Point. Mr. Stone told the Commission that he would let his clients know of the requirements and get in contact with and work out the specifics with ODOT and Jackson County. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue consideration and the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and zone changes for the Naumes Development to a subsequent meeting. Commissioner LeGros seconded the motion. Commissioner Hennion for Jackson County made a motion to continue consideration and the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments and zone changes to a subsequent meeting. Commissioner Greene seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed both Commissions unanimously. B. Public hearinn to consider a site elan introduced by Barbara and Stephen Brown to modify an existing business at 841 E. Pine Street for a drive up window. The subject property is located in the C-4 Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts. Planning Commission Minutes July 20'h, 1999 Page 4 Ken Gerschler presented the Planning Deparhnent Staff Report. The applicant's Barbara and Steven Brown have requested a site plan review by the Planning Commission that would allow a drive through window to be installed at 841 East Pine Street in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. The applicant's have been waiting for the Rite-Aid development to proceed with its project so that the drive through would be able to access the vacated ninth street right of way. With the Rite Aid development on hold the applicant's have decided to proceed with their proposal. The site plan indicates that the drive through window would be positioned on the east side of the building. Vehicular patrons would circulate from Ninth Street, through the parking lot, and up a newly created driveway to the window with an eventual exit from the site via a rear alley. In order for this development to proceed the applicant's will have to address how they will deal with problems of topography, street width, access and storm drainage. Mr. Humphrey noted that this development was supposed to be in conjunction with the street vacation. The ninth street is currently a public street and will only be vacated if the Rite Aid Development proceeds. Mr. Gerschler noted that he spoke with the Building Department and that the window itself is permitted on the property. Additional concerns revolved around ingress and egress points and traffic circulation and parking. Lee Brennan presented the Public Works Staff Report and that ninth street is a public street with a 60-foot right of way. The current proposal would put the new driveway in the public right of way. In order to proceed a contract with the city would have to be worked out, noting that at any time the city could take that property away from the applicants. Mr. Brennan noted that the sidewalks and an existing driveway apron would have to be repaired and that the applicant's were suggesting using rolled paving driveway curbing. Mr. Brennan noted that this kind of paving usually is not durable, easily cracks, and should not be considered a viable option. He also noted the slope of the driveway and stated that the city requires a 2 to 1 slope and the current configuration does not comply with these standards. Usually setbacks for a development of this type are 32 feet, the current configuration is only 10 feet. Mr. Brennan also noted that the drainage is not adequately addressed in the current plan and that it would have to be addressed. He also depicted graphically how cars would turn out of the driveway stating that it would be difficult for vehicles turning in and out of the business and that trucks could not do the turn adequately. Mr. Brennan asked the commission that if this site plan is approved that he would require improvements to the sidewalks and alley. A Storm Drain plan would have to be introduced to deal with run off, and that engineered plans, drawn to scale, would have to be submitted. Planning Commission Minutes July 20`h, 1999 Page 5 The Applicants, Barbara and Steven Brown 841 E. Pine Street, stated that this was the first they have heard of the problems associated with their proposal. They have been trying to work with the City of Central Point to create the new drive through. They believe they are being treated unfairly. They are not asking for a lot, just a window to be competitive. They do not own the land and do not think they should have to pay for the improvements. The cost of improvements would be a financial burden and effect the viability of the business. They have never had problems with the traffic. Their only problem is with trucks parking perpendicular to their business to enter the liquor store. The applicants indicated that if they got permission to proceed before the end of the moth they could get a break on their construction costs of about one thousand dollars. Mr. Humphrey addressed the commission and told them they should not feel pressured to make a decision on this proposal. Mr. Humphrey also stated that there have been some communication problems, but not to the extent they are being presented to the commission. The Commission asked about the Rite Aid development and how that would affect this proposal. Mr. Humphrey indicated that if Rite Aid does not come in ninth street will remain public right of way, and that he would contact Rite Aid to see what its status is and inform the commission of this discussion. Until the City hears otherwise, the Rite Aid development project as approved is still viable. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue this item to the next meeting pending further information on the Rite Aid development. She also stated that the Brown's should contact the City's Public Works and Planning Departments on how to solve this issue. Commissioner LeGros seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. C. Public Hearing to consider a request by Victor Kasmatka to vary from the Citv's standard off-street parking requirements. The subject proneriy is located on the north side of Cherry Street. 140 feet east of North Tenth Street in the R-3, Residential Multi- Famil z~g district. There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts. Ken Gerschler presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicant, Victor Kasmatka, has requested a variance from the off street parking requirements for the tentatively approved East Cherry Estates Subdivision. Mr. Kosmatka has designed his own floor plan which attempts to de-emphasize the garage as part of the overall Planning Commission Minutes July 20"', 1999 Page 6 architecture. His request for the variance is based upon aesthetics, affordability, and a precedence that was set for single car garages on a similar padlot development across the street. The decrease in garage size is intended to increase the distance between each unit and reduce the overall cost for the first time buyer. It will also add to the aesthetics for this area and make the whole cul-de-sac look like one development. There are garages of smaller dimensions across the street. Commissioner Fish asked Mr. Humphrey and Mr. Gerschler how a precedence had been set. Mr. Humphrey told the commission about the problems with the Blue Bird Heights Development. The smaller garages were not permitted, and were supposed to be wider. When the buildings were constructed the garage door size was influenced by new building code requirements. Lee Brennan presented the Public Works Staff Report and gave evidence that the proposed amount of parking would not be enough to get cars off the street. Mr. Brennan noted that Bluebird Heights has enough parking for four cars per unit and the off-street parking is filled up. The Public Works Department would like to have 40 feet of concrete, two adjoining 20 foot wide driveways, to make up for the lack of parking in the garage. The Applicant, Victor Kasmatka, informed the Commission that this development is supposed to be aesthically pleasing. The garage is de-emphasized so that the owner will have more yard and abetter-looking house. These pad-lots are designed for the first time home owner and since this is an R-3 type zone they are within the guidelines for an R-3 development for parking uses. Daniel Kosmatka, 33 Bell Air Court, Medford, OR, is the co-developer. He stated that since this is an R-3 zone those parking requirements should be applied. They are trying to make agood-looking house without having to add too much concrete. Tom Sharp, of East Cherry, stated that he was in favor of this proposal and that the Kosmatka's should be allowed to pursue this development because the other side looks just the same and there will be a parking problem regardless of how much pavement is put in. Commissioner Riggs asked the Public Works Director how much concrete they would Planning Commission Minutes July 20`h, 1999 Page 7 want. Mr. Brennan indicated he wanted 40 feet. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 458 approving the Variance from the standard off-street parking requirements. The applicant's will add an additional foot on each side of the driveway pavement for a total of 33 feet of pavement. Each garage having 16.5 feet of pavement. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: motion passed unanimously. VII MISCELLANEOUS There were no miscellaneous items. VII ADJOURNMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: August 3, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing- Site Plan Review for a drive through window at 841 East Pine Street (37 2W 02CC Tax Lot 4100). Business Owner(s): Barbara and Steven Brown P.O. Box 814 Phoenix, Oregon 97535 Property Owner: Dennis Sullivan umma 841 E. Pine Central Point, OR 97502 The Planning Commission continued this item from their last meeting to allow the applicants and City staff time to come up with some alternatives for a proposed drive through and associated public improvements. Anulicable Law CPMC 12.04.015 et seq -Streets and Sidewalks, Construction required. CPMC 17.44.010 et seq.- C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion The applicant's Barbara and Steven Brown have requested site plan review and approval from the Planning Commission that would allow a drive through window to be installed at 841 East Pine Street. Their preference is to install the window about midway along the east side of the building, enter the driveway from the Ninth Street driveway and exit into the alley at the rear of the property. At the last meeting the Planning and Public Works Departments described the difficulties associated with retrofitting an existing building with a drive through at this location, exacerbated by the City's previous approval of the Rite Aid drug store. At the Commission's encouragement, the Planning and Public Works Directors have met with the City Administrator to discuss options for the Browns that are consistent with the Municipal Code and the City's Engineering Standards and Specifications. City staff have come up with two alternatives that are described as follows. The first is to construct the drive through window on the north (back) side of the building rather than on the east side. This would involve exclusive access west bound through the alley. Public improvements would be limited to the alley (including the driveway apron), could be constructed by the City and then paid for via a Local Improvement District (LID). Property owners participating in the LID would be J .. 1 assessed the cost of improvements and reimburse the City over time (usually a ten year period). The alley can be signed for one way traffic and this circulation scheme would fit in well with the Rite Aid proposal if it should proceed. This proposal would be less convenient to the business owner in terms of service delivery but would be less expensive. A sign or mural could be considered for the east wall of the building to identify the entrance to the drive through and there would be more room to que vehicles at the window. The second alternative is to construct the window midway along the east wall as proposed by the Browns and make improvements which include, but are not limited to; a new driveway, a retaining wall, strip drains at either end of the driveway, a new driveway apron at the northwest corner of Ninth and Pine Streets and sidewalk repair. An LID will still be pursued with the property owners to improve the alley and its driveway apron separately. The Public Works Department can make the improvements mentioned above and the City can come up with an installment plan for the Browns to reimburse the City over time. However this expense could not be passed on to a subsequent business owner. As with other site plan proposals the Commission has considered in the commercial district, municipal code requirements dictate some public improvements. Relief from these requirements can only be granted by the City Council. Findings are provided for the Commission in Attachment A Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Planning Department Staff Report dated July 20, 1999 :.. 2 Attachment A PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 20, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review for a drive through window at 841 East Pine Street (37 2W 02CC Tax Lot 4100). A~nlicant: Central Point Perk 841 East Pine Street Central Point, OR 97502 Business Owner: Barbara and Steven Brown Property Owner: Dennis Sullivan P.O. Box 814 841 E. Pine Phoenix, Oregon 97535 Central Point, OR 97502 Pro er Description/ 37 2W 02CC Tax Lot 4100 - 0.23 acres Zonin C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District Summarv The applicants, Barbaraand StevenBrownhaverequested aSite P1anReviewto constructadrive through window at 841 East Pine Street. The addition of a drive through window would allow customers an opportunity to purchase products without leaving their vehicle. Authority 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 ofthe public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B). Applicable Law CPMC 17.44.010 et seq.- C-4, Tourist and Office 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 ,, 3 Discussion The applicant's Barbara and Steven Brown have requested a site plan review by the Planning Commission that would allow a drive through window to be installed at 841 East Pine Street inthe C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. CPMC 17.72.010 et. seq. requires a Site Plan review by the Planning Commission for all new construction requiring a building permit. Barbara and Stephen purchased the Central Point Perk at 841 East Pine Street approximately one year ago and the baked goods and beverage business has been popular with residents and visitors alike. To remain competitive, the business owners are prepared to install a drive throughwindowthat would provide vehicular service similar to the espresso business located near First and Pine Streets. Duringthepastfewmonths,the Brown's have bcenpatientlywaiting to see howtheir drivethroughproject could be integrated with the proposed Rite Aid prof ect since it was thought that the drive through could be designed and engineered with aportion of Ninth Street that was vacated by the City Council. Since the Rite Aid activity has bcenpostponed indefinitely, the Brown's would like to proceed with the drive through project by providing a site plan for the Commission's consideration. The siteplan (AttachmentA) indicates thatthe drive through windowwouldbe positioned onthe eastside ofthe building. Vehicular patrons would circulate finmNinth Street, throughthe parking lot, and up a newly created driveway to the window with an eventual exit from the site via a rear alley. Several potential difficulties in preparing for the driveway relate to topography, street width, access and storm drainage. The existing juniper landscape strip along Ninth Street would need to be removed and replaced with a retaining wall or other device designed to offset an approximate 3 foot elevational difference between the building and the street. The new driveway or any other improvements cannot encroach onto public property and therefore City Staff would like to work with the applicants to determine the approximate property line. The Public Works Department has indicated concerns about the changes to the existing traffic circulation and storm water drainage that would result from the installation ofthe paved impervious surface. Please refer to the Public Works Staff report for details (Attachment D). An agreementmaybe necessary betweenthe property owner andthe City dependentuponthe vacation of Ninth Street since some of the site improvements are located on public property. The BuildingDepartmenthas completedaspecial inspection determining thatthe windowcanbe installed on the existing building. 4 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 ofwalls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantiallyinterferewiththe landscaping scheme oftheneighborhood, and in suchamannerto use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commissionmayrequire themaintenance ofexisting plants orthe installation ofnewones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The constructionofthedrivethroughwindowwouldrequiretheremovalofalandscaping strip that abuts Ninth Street. 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; ^ A drive through window will change the existing traffic circulation at the site. It is uncertain whether on site circulation will be improved with or without the Rite Aid development. 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; ^ Theproposeddrivethroughwindowwillnotreducethenumberofexistingparkingspaces. 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 Public Works Department may require on-site traffic direction devices to be installed as a condition of approval. E. Accessibility and sufficiency office 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; ~~ c ^ An approval of this application would be subject to any conditions that may be assigned by Jackson County Fire District Number Three. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The project as proposed is a permitted activity subject to approval by the Planning Commission. 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 drive through improvements are similar to other service-oriented businesses in the C-4 zoning district. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No.~ approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment C ); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Site Plan, Building Elevations B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Planning Department Conditions D. Public Works Staff Report .., ~ g v7~~~T SGOP~ CLW1'RA~z ~ol~/T" ~E~2 {L 8~s E. ~.L~/~ sr 5~aw~9~ W ---, SuPG __~ I~DD~T1'~~~~- ~cs~srr>~j ~.~~ ~ ,~~3 s .~~ ~pc's~ G2..,,~ro ~~ ~J K_~~ --- Exsz3;-~i V 5 w H h J ./ ~ Ciity of Ct~zUr#1 L?uLt EXHI~i`T t'A'f Planning Deparlmen~t n ~~v '~ ~~ ,= I ~ `~ ,5?TcrZ'~ ~ /9~ s ~c - $ ~ n~ ~- e`~~ 4 ~.. ~ ~- , 9. Ctxl~9t- ~a[N9' P~l~ e~1t F. pc~rc Sr ~~~g f}c~~Sr,Xa ~ A ~ KS r~T,~,./~ ~,Zt~c=why prr.~ m-~ss ---~; ~ ~~ ~o r ~' E ~I 3 4 h V. .1 0` ~. ~g r$ ~~ . h ~~~~ I ~~ = i' ._ < Z00/Z00'd LBOZ# Cr'~ ~~ S20 F'~G5 E'D =i9~9NZri S3SIUdN3S,fI3 QNH'I3df)~~"'••~.. ... r ~ t V~L^~ z ~ -1 T88B6L4TfiS SS~f.i hfifii~GT"Iflf y n~ ~~~ ~pT?tvfs --_--~-- .e---- 2~'-oK -----~- a~ ~Bld'~' yg/ty'tti7~dr E~CP~a~j 4Q~ Rou.c'~ PR l?i~. 4aso~ ro sfbr-~n9+-K- M~~~'`I 3r-a ~r £' ~N~ ~EE~s^ ~r.~r~-r~o~r sUs-cF ~/gz'" = ~ r ~_~ 9 -- -~~-+.•--s ~~~ 3 °~ 4 Y ~~ L0. \', A~. W 4 i-o jw .~ „1 ~~ ~~ V Q A ~' -J \ f 9~i ~ N a~ '-~ City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Community Planner Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: July 7,1999 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING July 20, 1999 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon City of Ceptrai i'atut EXIHI~TT "g't Planning Department Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Site Plan Review that could allow the construction of a drive up window for a business at 841 East Pine Street. The subjectparcel islocated in a C-4, Tourist and Office-Professional Zoning Districton Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W02CC, Tax Lot 4100. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Plan Revieware setforth in Chapter 17 ofthe Central PointMunicipalCode, 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 20, 1999. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. ~1 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 _ 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expirationofthecommentperiodnotedabove. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. CopiesofallevidencerelieduponbytheapplicantareavailableforpublicreviewatCityHa11,155 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 staffreports, 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 CommissionmayapproveordenytheSitePlanReview. CityregulationsprovidethattheCentral Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ^. ~~ ~\~ ~ f~~ i2 ~ V~~~ SUBJECT PROPERTY 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ATTACHMENT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING AND PUBLIC WORKS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on August 3, 2000 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. 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. 3. 13 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: August 3, 1999 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Variance from fence requirements at 3900 Grant Road (372W IOBB Tax Lot 300). A~nlicant: The Church of the Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. 50 East North Temple Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84150 Aeent: Daniel L. Park 6180 Shady Brook Drive Central Point, Oregon 97502 Summary: The applicant wishes to vary from fence requirements in order to construct pilasters and wrought iron fencing for the proposed L.D.S. Temple. The subject parcel is zoned R-1-10, Residential Single-Family. Authority: CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review and decide , without a public hearing, any application for a fence variance. The review is being performed in accordance with CPMC 1.24.050. Analicable Law: CPMC 15.20.040 et seq. -Fence Height on Lots CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1-10, Residential Single-Family District Discussion• Earlier this year, the Commission approved the site plan for the L.D.S. Temple to be constructed at 3900 Grant Road in the R-1-10, Residential Single Family zoning district. In the plan, a wrought iron fence was shown to surround the facility along the west, north and east project boundaries. Upon receipt of construction plans, the Building Official notified the Planning Department that the fence height would be six feet with supporting pilasters being seven and one half feet. The wrought iron fence is in compliance of the municipal code with the exception of the 260 foot section abutting the side property line on Grant Road and the 7 % foot support pilasters for the entire length of the project. 14 }" / q In order to proceed with the construction of the proposed pilasters and fence, the applicant has asked that the Planning Commission vary from fence requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code. CPMC Sections 15.20.040 and 15.20.070 state t/rat no fence be /rigl:er that six feet overall and t/:at no fence shall be /tig/:er t/tan three and oue-/:alffeet wkere such fence is within t/te required setback area. Requests for fence variances s/tall be made by application ...and shall be reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1.24 (which involves Planuing Commission consideration without apublic /rearing). In the attached findings provided by the applicant state that the fence will provide security to the Temple facility and delineate a boundary between secular and religious activities. The City of Central Point required an additional 10 foot right of way on Grant Road to accommodate the additional traffic load in the area. If the rights of way had not been increased, the applicants would have only needed to ask for a variance from the maximum height for the pilasters since the 6 foot high portion along Grant Road would have been out of the required setback. The fence does not enter the 55 foot sight vision triangle required in the Central Point Public Works Standards. If the variance were to be approved, the fence and pilasters would be erected as shown on the construction plans. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law A variance maybe granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or The installation of the 6 foot wrought iron fence and 7'/Z foot pilasters serve as an attractive form of security for the temple structure. If the fence were required to meet the current 42 inch maximum height requirement, the function and attractiveness would likely be reduced. 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, A wrought iron fence provides an attractive appearance while reducing the need for more frequent City police patrols. Furthermore, the fence makes the Temple facilities less attractive to burglars and vandals. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The six foot wrought iron fence and 7'/x foot pilasters are attractive, allow a visual openness to manicured landscaping and are an integral part of the Temple site. ~. 15 7° ~ c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, The six foot fence could create a greater sense of safety for personal property to local area residents. Unnecessary risk of injury is reduced because temple visitors are kept out of public right of way; illegal entrance to the Temple and adjoining property is discouraged. d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, While the 6 foot height would provide a degree of protection to the Temple and prevents people from wandering onto private properly which is considered sacred to the church. The Variance would not directly provide protection to the surrounding neighborhood or city. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. There are no apparent adverse impacts that would result from the construction of the fence. f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. The construction material of the wrought iron fence and pilasters are consistent with municipal regulations in the Residential Multiple-Family zoning district, however the proposed height exceeds the maximum permitted height for the zoning district. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the fence 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 for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments• A. Application, exhibits and applicant findings 16 ~~ / 1. ary or c~~~a~ ratnc ~. ~.,,, w.,, ,e~~. ,~.,~, -- -------- ~ EXHIEIT ttA~t ~~ti 17 YIQ, MY H~ ¢~u JY Wxx ~~„ ~~a~e 1 J 3 Z¢ Z~ Q- W T Oh F= W~ 1/1 J, U 2 O F U W N~ Z. ~4 ~~ Ja O~ ~h H~ zh J~ a u J~ a ~ ~ ~ ~6 ~ h ~ A¢ ~ r ` '~ ~~' U ~ a ~~~: ks ~b~l~ Y b ~ h 6 8 4~ gg ~~~~ E i€~~g ~ W q $~p ky ~ e P ~S~Y ~ ° Z ~,~ ~ O W k N s awn U ~ ~gg d 1 m J Q F oy z; ~'` o~ U 3 3 C L r ~ t ff e ~~ J li Findings The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Days Saints requests a variance from fencing ordinances with the City of Central Point The Temple being erected at 3900 Grant Road is considered by its members to be a holy sanctuary devoted to the worship and honoring of God. The building offers its members a shelter from the day to day activities that distract from their relationship with the Lord. The building site offers the community this same retreat and a visible reminder of our honor to God. As a member walks through the gates all worldly worries are set aside for worship of the lord. An opportunity to renew covenants and revitalize our religious commitment. The fence symbolizes a separation between worldliness and the kingdom of God. The temple grounds are intended for personal reflection and worship. It is intended to be a garden apart from the day to day concerns of the world that are all about us. It is not intended to be a place of recreation, like a community park. The grounds are maintained elegantly as a tribute of respect to the Lord The fence is a majestic and elegant addition to the neighborhood. Providing beautification, safety and protection. It will in no way offer any adverse impact to the adjoining community and will provide a protection to the building and grounds when the building is closed. It will provide a clear definition of private and public areas for visitors to the site. We respectfully request approval of our proposed fence 19 Y~ y r PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: August 3, 1999 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Revisions to CPMC Section 17.60.030 Accessory buildings Various issues have arisen in the recent past that either apply directly to the construction of accessory buildings or have been discussed in the context of garage dimensions or temporary structures for off street covered parking. The planning staff have attempted to address all of these issues through a single code section dealing with accessory structures. Attachment A is introduced with proposed language in bold italicized print. The Commission is being asked to consider the proposed language, make changes as necessary and recommend revisions to the City Council ATTACHMENTS A. Proposed CPMC Revisions 20 ~ / '~ 17.08.380 Structure. Structure means anything constructed or built which requires location on the ground or is attached to something having a location on the ground, including swimming pools, covered patios, fences and walls; but not including normal plants and landscaping materials, paved outdoor areas, walks, driveways, and similar improvements. 17.08.381 Temporary Structure. A structure defined by CPMC Chapter 17.08.380 yet utilized on a short term, seasonal or intermittent use. 17.60.030 Accessory buildings. Accessory buildings shall comply with all requirements for the principal use except where specifically modified by this title and shall comply with the following limitations: A. Regardless of the side and rear yard requirements of the district, in a residential (R) district a side or rear yard not adjoining a street may be reduced to three feet, measured from the furthest protrusion or overhang, for an accessory structure erected more than fifty-five feet from the street right-of--way line on which the lot fronts, other than alleys, provided the structure is detached and separated from other buildings by ten feet or more. B. Canvas covered canopies and other temporary structures. Temporary structures in residential (R) districts shall not be permitted within a front setback and only within a side setback that does not abut a public right of way. Temporary structures within a side setback shall be at least three feet from the side lot line measured from the furthest protrusion or overhang. Such structures are to be anchored to the ground in accordance wit{t building code requirements. C. Structural dimensions. All accessory buildings totaling 120 square feet or more will require a building permit and be subject to Council ofAmerican Building Officials (CABO) requirements and the Central Point Municipal Code. 1. Height. Accessory structures in residential (R) districts shall not exceed 25 feet if detached from the main structure. Structures greater than I S feet but less than 25 feet in height shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from a side or rear lot line. 2. Width and length. Garages and carports intended to satisfy the municipal code requirement for two off-street covered parking spaces shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width by 20 feet in length and have a 16 foot garage door. 21 4 ~ `) (~ `Y '~ h 0 PQ 0 0 a U ~• ~y ~y ~1 u 3 E ~ t• n ~ y1 rl }F~41 _~ O ~"1 O O ~ O ~ ~ M 4J b ~ ~~r ~ U N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ b U~~ ~ 0 ~ p ~ ~ o ~ x ~ 3 ~ ~ ~.-~ ~ ~ w to ~ o o ~~ ~ a ~ a~ w ~, p O ~, ~: cd P+ ~ ~ ~ M g ~ ~~ o ~~ ~ ,; U ~ ~,~~ ~~ w M . Q • ~ w ~ w ~ a a~ w~ x~ ~ ~~ a'W~~n b Who x ~~ 0 ~ " q a w ~ F ~ ~ y ti ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ W N o s A a o A c ~ v -~ ~ a > w ~ a ~ ~ ~ ` F3 ,~ ~ ~ ~ k rr ,a; a ~ ~ ~ a ~ a °' ~ ~ O U ~ N .~i ~ V1 +~-+ U ~" O bA O R. Cd ~ ~ ~ ~, N a O ~ a~ .--~ ~ ~a~+r -~-~ ~ ~ VJ ~ v ~ S > v o m N L~" ~ V1 q O := Cd " N ro ~ U o ~ ~, ~ w ~ v ~, ~ ~, ~ v o ~°' o W N _ ~ .~ _ a~++ ^~O ~ m a ~ ~r ~ (~ ~+ U1 G `~~++ C U F~- ~ S (~ 'L7 (/~ '~ cA ~ ~ ~ ~ ti ~ ,~~ Planning Commission Distribution List Planning. Commission Members = 7 (Hand Deliver) ,.~'ChUCk Piland r~Candy Fish ~$ob Gilkey ~ Karolyne Johnson Paul Lunte _C~"Don Foster ~" JaneDunla~ u xa~n~ ~°~`.~ 2. Departure t Heads = 5 /City Administrator /EI Planning Director Public Works Director ,O~P11b11C Works Secretary Fire ChiefBuilding Official (Lois) ~ A'l3uilding Secretary ~jl/IGt,7T 3. ~.ef Administrative Secretary/File 4. 1~ill Stults 5. ~J City Attorney (Mail) ,~BCVSA (Mail) 6. ~st Floor (CJ) 7. ~ax to list on GIS Computer using the Rapidcom fax program the list is in the address book as Agenda. 8. Agenda Only posted on cork board on 1 st floor and one in box by "missing Persons" ~ggtCall Applicants to come pick up a copy from the counter~ggt Total Copies = 17 ~~~'_ ~!S~6 ~~~~