The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPlanning Commission Packet - September 1, 1998l.... 'a'} `Y . ` CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA. September 1, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 430 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. August 18, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes will not be available until the second meeting in September V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Pagel-2 A. ContinuationofPublicHearingtoconsiderarequestbyTedBranchtodevelop Griffin Creek Estates, a Tentative Plan fora 151ot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1-8 zoning district. 3 -11 B. Public Hearing to consider a request by the Redha Corporation to subdivide 11 lotswithinthe SnowyMountain ViewSubdivisioninthevicinityofMountainView Drive and Columbine Way in the R-3 zoning district. 12 - 23 C. Public Hearing to consider a request by the City Public Works Department to vary from the side yard setback and review a Site Plan to facilitate the construction of a new building on property located at 399 South 5th Street in the R-1-6 zoning district. 24 - 33 D. Consideration of a request by Monte and Danika Bischoff to vary from the maximum fence heightrequirements onproperty located at 1029 Brandi Way in the R-3 zoning district. .ry ~ i 1. yl ~~ VII. MISCELLANEOUS A. Discussion ofMunicipal Code Chapter 8.04.040 regarding definition, use and placemenbof privies VIII. ADJOURNMENT ~. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REP RT HEARING DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing - To consider a Tentative Plan fora 15 lot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1-8 zoning district (372W10AB Tax Lot 5200; 372W10BA Tax Lot 9900; 372W10BD Tax Lots 100, 300 & 600). licant/ Owner: fled Branch P.O. Box 884 Rogue River, Oregon 97537 Agent: Herb Farber, Farber Surveying 120 Mistletoe Street Medford, Oregon 97501 Summary The applicant has submitted an infill development proposal which is similar to one considered and approved by the City in January 1994. The same number of residential lots (15) is being proposed and a through road, rather than two cul-de-sacs, is being introduced as a 30' wide residential lane. A zone variance was previously approved by the City to relocate an existing dwelling. The subject parcels are zoned R-1-8, Residential Single-Family. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Tentative Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. A_nolicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 16.24.060 -Through Lots CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. -R-1, Residential Single-Family District G:\PLANNING\98047.WPD 1 Discussion: The applicant has informed City staff that an offer has been made to purchase one of the five tax lots (#5200 which is the largest parcel) implicated in this development proposal. Should the lot sell the applicant would withdraw his development application. At this writing an agreement has not been consummated and the applicant has requested that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing or remove the proposal from the agenda. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Continue the review and public hearing. for the Tentative Plan application to a specific date and time. 2. Table the review of this item until a request for withdrawal is received or a revised plan is submitted and a public hearing is renoticed. Exhibits: None G:\PLANNING\98047. W PD ~~ ,, PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Tentative Plan for the replat of 11 lots within the Snowy Mountain View Subdivision. licant/ REDHA Corporation Owner: 339 West Valley View Road Ashland, OR 97520 ent: L..T. Friar and Associates 816 West 8th Street Medford, OR 97501 Pro e Description/ 37 2W11AA Tax Lots 1800,1900,2000,2100,2200,2300 372W11AD Tax Lots 7100,7600,7700,7900,8000 Zonine: R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District SummarX The applicant, REDHA Corporation, is proposing a tentative plan to replat 11 lots within the Snowy Mountain View subdivision and create 22 padlot parcels. The site is zoned R-3, Residential Multiple-Family and is located on Mountain View and Columbine Drives. ut ' CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on conditional use permits and preliminary development plans for planned unit developments. Notice of the public hearing was given. in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B). li CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. R-3, Residential Multiple Family District CPMC 17.60.210 General Provisions, Padlot Developments Discussion Padlot developments are permitted in the R-3 zoning district subject to several requirements including, but not limited to: 1) they shall be processed as a tentative subdivision plan; 2) the parent parcel from which the padlot is created shall conform to the standard requirements for lots in the zoning district they are located in; and 3) structures on padlots must meet all applicable state building code requirements. The Snowy Mountain View Subdivision was originally created with the intention of building duplexes on each lot. The developer subsequently decided to develop padlot units for sale in place of duplexes on eleven lots. As the Commission will note, three of the eleven lots. in question have already had homes built on them. The Building Department has inspected these homes and determined that they can subdivided and comply with state building code requirements for padlots. Public Works improvements. have been made however the Department must confirm that individual water meters exist for each new padlot and are not cross-connected. City staff will confirm this at the Commission meeting. The Building, Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the tentative plan for the proposed replat and have concluded that it is in compliance with all city requirements if all conditions of approval pertaining to minimum lot size, dimensions and access to public roadways are met. indin s CPMC 16.10.010. requires that applications for tentative plans be submitted with improvement plans and other supplementary information as may be needed to indicate the development plan. ^ The proposed requirements listed in CPMC 16.36.030 have been satisfied. The Public Works Department may request additional information to satisfy standard specification requirements. CPMC 17.28.050 establishes minimum area, width and yard requirements for the R-3, Residential Multiple-Family district. __. 4 .~ , ,~ ^ The parent parcetfrom which each padlot is created conforms to the standard requirements for lots in the R-3 zoning district. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the tentative plan application for the replat of the Snowy Mountain View Subdivision. 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the replat of the. eleven subject parcels, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff reports; or 2. Deny the replat of the eleven subject parcels based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission. 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits A. B. C. D. .. Tentative.Plan- Replat of the Snowy Mountain View subdivision Notice of Public Hearing Planning Department Recommended Conditions Correspondence ~~~ ~y^s .4„y ......_... gr a. a -.• ® ~O _ ~ ^R a h . wrmerf -^ D -~^e .I -.. ee ~.-~I .li -~" -"- a IJ -^-- O O - O „ 8 G ' _ nC G wt ~ °~ z n a 'G °G Y~ ~ ! I 1 ~ ~ 9~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~R 8 ~° $ °n a pp g sE ~~ `o~ _ z el ol~ OJ . =J }a.ll . JI.00 ]}.O- ]}.OD J},Op J1.Oe JO.OJ w 1Y ~ J0.00 IIIM/t H ~ ~ s} }J COLUMBINE WAY _ _ _ _ rn.vs _ -~ ~ ~ JiJVlJ os'f ' a.s u S 8 n PARCEL II O IJM le fr V ~' I, ,/ , +siuii a!a !na .o/ M1 p € g M/ISa'JS'f IOO.W i RCEI fl I O H ~ ~ ~ sa _ R 8 xmv as f loo.aJ ss sr Rr=o N ! R>0 h" • t n ~ $ byl~ _ ~ ~rN~' "4~a do 'V , 0 \ V} W ~"yn0 C ~~ah a_ ~~ ~ ~. ~}~4 (~ ha1 ,y o® Qy,, w, .. , E'er N;me w~o4 ~ ~h ~ ~ yj^y i® ~~2 Oo ~'o;Wb ; ~ ~oi~ .. !~, y m ~ ~ ~ ~~~ti °u ~a1v 8 - O! ,' `!! r~~S I ~I ° Ip i Ir~ ~3 zl Q O 1~ ~ ~~e M1 ~ ~~ 3 ~' @ ~ s ~ % W ° ':C qq€€ m :~'~s s ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~s .. az~ ~:~:~ ggras3 ~ ~ ~ _ ~3 e ~~ ~~ 3 sS p ` ; tl a s~ 4 : ~ s s~ ~gtd5 L E ~ a`~~u~ g6 ~~~ ~ ~« ~a:gk~i~ggg~~ ~€~ " ~°:~ g 38 g ~ y$l ~ S ae S `~ e~6~i~~g~ „ ~i ~ • ooe I ~ [~ ]~. ID I a. I I I ,~,~'.ls..- R a a iiii ie Dil I R i w a Rr sa•f loo.ao $ sa 1 sr m ~ ~ sor~J~ ssp~ls~~.8= PO io ~i n~ i~z c° s ~ !}.,, ~•f ia.De I xmlr0l r a. ` ~ ~ ~_ NOPft INS ROAD - -® ~:~x,,.x:e: Y°`ASi$R$8~0. d S x !~ ~a~ a n h J City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Hearing Date of Notice: August 11,1998 Meeting Date: Time: Place: September 1, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING CYty of Central Point ~XHII~T t'B't Planning Deparlmen't Begmning atthe above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application to subdivide l l lots withinthe SnowyMountain View Subdivision inthevicinity ofMountain ViewDrive and Columbine Way. Theproposed subdivisionis located inanR-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district on Assessment Plat 37 2W 11AD, Tax Lots 7100, 7600, 7700, 7900, and 8000. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Plans are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relatingto General Regulations, Off-strcetparking, Site Plan, LandscapingandConstructionPlans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS. 1. Anypersoninterestedincommentingontheabove-mentionedlandusedecisionmaysubmitwritten comments up untilthe close of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 1, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 J r J ~, 4. CopiesofallevidencerelieduponbytheapplicantareavailableforpublicreviewatCityHa11,1S5 ~'• South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon.. Copies may be purchased for 15 cents per page. 5. Foradditionalinformation,thepublicmaycontactthePlanningDepartmentat(541)664-3321 ext. 23 L SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthe meeting, the Planning Commissionwill 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 reviewthe Planning Commissionmay approveordenytheTentative Plan. City regulations providethat the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. Street 1 ' 1 ' •~ a. EXHIBIT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Tentative Plan shall expire in one year on June 2, 1999 unless an application for final plat or extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The tentative and final plats shall depict utility easements requested by the City, BCVSA and WP Natural Gas. Any changes to utility layout including fire hydrants shall require subsequent approval by the respective service provider. .,~. g .{ BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 3916 SOUTH PACIFIC HW V. • MEDFORD, OREGON 97601-9099 • (641) 779.4144 • FAX (b41) 636.5278 City of Central Point EXHI~I'I' tt~, tf Planning Deparknen't July 31, 1998 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: Tentative Plat Partition of Lots in Snowy Mountain View Subdivision Dear Ken, We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. We do not have as-built plans of the original subdivision therefore we are unable to comment on service line locations. The location of our existing Interceptor sewer appears to be well away from this site. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this planning action. Sincerel James May, Jr. P.E. District Engineer ~~. 10 08/20/98 09:12 FA% 5418264566 FIRE DISTRICT #3 ~ 02 ,~ e° ," , ~ FIRE DISTRICT No. 3 ,JACKSON COUNTY 8333 AGATE ROAD, WHITE CITY, OREGON 97503-1075 (541) 826.7100 FAX (541) 826.4566 s-za98 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Q~cDFtt1 I~~k2T'~TroK Re: Snowy Mountain View Subdivision E The applicant will need to provide Fire District #3 with a site plan showing fire hydrant locations, street width and culdesacs. If the project is connected to other streets that have hydrants on them the plan should show the closest one to this project. ~~ ~~~~, Neil Shaw Deputy Fire Marshal VJl 1~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 1,1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review and Variance from Side Yard Setback Requirements for 37 2W 11BB Tax Lot 8200-Central Point Public Works Yard. licant/ City of Central Point Owner: 399 South 5th Street Central Point, OR 97502 Pr er Description/ 37 2W 11BB Tax Lot 8200- 3.34 acres Zoninet R-3, Residential Multiple-Family Summary The applicant has requested a Site Plan Review for the addition of a new City shop building and the relocation/remodel of existing buildings that are part of the City's public works yard on South 5th Street. The Public Works Department would like to improve their existing office arrangement by creating space for training, plan review and personnel management (refer to Attachment A). The construction of the new facility would allow existing and inadequate office space to be reclaimed for use as a garage bay and partial conversion to a water system telemetry control room. The proposed placement of the new building requires a variance from the City's side yard setback. th r' 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). AQplicable Law CPMC 17.20.010 et seq.- R-1 Residential Single Family 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 ~ ~. ~ 3.2 Discussion The applicants are proposing the addition of a 1520 square foot office building to the existing public works yard and shop complex. The new office area would be constructed in a paved portion of the yard and would replace two existing buildings (see Attachment A). The placement of the new building is intended to make the best use of yard space and access to the property from Cedar Street. Requirements for on-site parking (stall length) and the importance of maintaining specific distances between older buildings, a water tank and the new building have necessitated an application to vary from the side yard setback of this corner lot. The City Public Works Department maintenance crew currently operates from a converted garage bay in a building that is approximately 40 years old. The proposed office building would include a mud room, plans office, supervisor's office, training/lunch room'and ADA accessible bathrooms with corresponding locker areas (Attachment A). Existing training, locker and office areas will be reclaimed for use as shop and parking bays, and a telemetry room used to control water reservoirs, master meters, and master flow meters. The property surrounding the public works yard is occupied by single and multi-family dwellings and a school recreation field. Curb, gutter and sidewalk currently exists along the applicant's frontage, there is established landscaping along portions of the site and the entire perimeter of the property is fenced. 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 applicant's site plan landscaping plan depicts numerous planters with trees and shrubs as they presently exist along Cedar and South 5th Streets. The landscaping is already irrigated and drip irrigation will be extended to new wine barrel planters. 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; ^ There are presently two driveways one on South Fifth Street and the other on Cedar Street. The Cedar Street access will be used more often than it is now once the new building is constructed. Traffic volume counts on Cedar are low. ~~ 13 ,, 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 City's new parking plan depicts a total of 7 parking spaces (one handicapped) in addition to those that now exist in the yard and in front of the shop buildings. Under CPMC 17.64.040(D) building square footage .necessitates 5 spaces: Design requirements in CPMC 17.64.100 call for paved, adequately drained parking areas for all-weather use; painted striping; lighting and the placement of bumper rails along property lines, sidewalks and landscaping areas. 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 City presently has a sign and does not expect to add any others. However, should this change, the specific location will be identified as part of a sign permit application with the building department. 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; ^ Jackson County Fire District Number 3 and the City's Building Department will enforce State Fire and Building codes. The Fire District has determined-that fire hydrants are currently available on street frontage and no new hydrants will be required. F: Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The proposed construction fails to meet the minimum setback requirements for the R-1 District. A variance from these requirements is also being considered with thissite plan application. Engineering Standards and Specifications also call for adequate parking lot illumination which the applicant will provide. There are currently street lights along South 5th and Cedar Streets. 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 new office building is generally compatible with the surrounding structures and presents an attractive appearance. The Public Works Department has submitted building elevations as part of the application package. Site landscaping, parking improvements and new construction by the applicants would enhance the aesthetic value of the site. ., ~ .. 14 ~~ , Variance A variance may be granted iffindings 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 overall efficiency of the public works yard; upgrade the site aesthetically and provide ADA access to a public building. 2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. ^ The requested Variance and proposed modifications will not have any anticipated adverse impacts to adjoining uses located along Fifth or Cedar Streets. If anything, the improvements could provide added incentive for other businesses and homes 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 Public Works yard and will be more accessible useful to customers and employees. The building remodel will introduce new landscaping, access and parking where it currently is not well defined. ~" 4.=Circumstances affect the property that do not apply to other property in the same zoning district. ^ The existing structures on site (water tower and shop buildings) make it difficult to work around and meet the zoning requirements. ` _ 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 the water tower and shop buildings date back to the 1950s. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the Site Plan and Variance subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Attachment C ); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan and Variance; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan and Variance at the discretion of the Commission. ~~~ 15 • ~,.., ~~ ., Attachments A. Application and Exhibits submitted.by City Public Works Department B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Planning Department Conditions J ~ ~ SITE PLAN REVIEW APPLICATION City of Central Point Planning Department __ City of Central E'oiut EXHIBIT ttA~~ Planning DepartmenT APPLICANT INFORMATION 'Name: Public Works Department City of Central Point Address: ~ 55 So end St City: Central no, nt State: OR Zip Code: 9~Sn~ Telephone: Business: 664-7602 Residence: 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Address: ~;+} of !' n+ i v i + City: State: Zip Code: Telephone: Business: Residence: OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Than One) Name: City of Central Point City: State: Zip Code: Telephone: Business: Residence: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Type of Development: Shop Building for Publid Works Deo+ Township: 37 Range: 2W Section: 11BB Tax Lot(s): 8200 Address: Zoning District: R-1-6 Project Acreage: Number of Dwelling Units: Non-Sale Area Sq. Footage Number of Parking Spaces: _ 5. REQUIREja SUBMITTALS p' This Application Form. Sale Area Sq. Footage =Gross Floor Area 15 2 0 Legal Description. ~/ lication Fee Wp'NED BY ^ Letter of Pro ect Descri tion. J~ PP BENEVOLENCE ~~ ~ P ^" ite Plan Drawn fo Scale (10 copies). Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process. G3" Reduced Copies (8'/z x 11) of the Site Plan, Building Elevations and Landscape Plans (1 copy Ea.). CY/Landscape and Irrigation Plan (3 copies). 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 KNOWLEDGE. I certify that I am the : ^ Property Owner or ~ J v .... Authorized Agent of the Owner i ~ of the proposed. project site. ,T . ~'. OL ~~, / 92G ~ i Sy WATER TANK OA / r ~~ ~~«x.~A~. /~i ~.~~w~~ [OUfIHM MNRMY. I ® /~ PNJJW ~. ~0`// \ ~ ~ wH/ / ~ ~ enas»rn rnaen¢rroa / / ' ~ -- ®wsrwun ix Omnxcoma i wsrwc eulwxw / ~ 41N ro x enaA 0 oxvneo. La 4 .®'~ `,, iC. ~~VIAKM ® wsnwnamm ~o ~ ~ ~ \~ P~ MwY ~ ,(~ , pry^WhM PMR i35 ., 1. wxcun mw~iC aenxcawx ~ ~~ 1`''~~ (~ uxtraa / emnxcaw iQv O \ ,~ .... ~ PP ///~~\ ~• ~ / A4. PAY2~ ~V~ m~r~. \ / ~ e~vgn nAa¢u/ ® PUBOC NUW95110P i D I.~p 1U PROP03[p WADING LOCATION i~ P ~ t ~~~ 19 h, v ~~~~~ O~ZAv°, Amoy°~ ~~^~„ n AF ,! III'. ilj! II,,:~ ~ I I ~~i II I;II! ~ I I ICI ~I I -_ ~ 'I ill I II I I!i ~ _._ "I I~. ;~~ `~ III li I ~ j~ ~,: 1 - _ :, ~ ~ I ~ I:I k. i.~. ~~-~I ~ p 1 \~ ~ ~ I I i o y nCC,? Q~ g-''~ N Ya Zk ~ ~ ~ -- ~~ Nc i y ~o z .. o~] ~~ ~~ m :Q ~ I ~ J h0 ~ w ` ~ ~ R V ^11 I i -. ~~; ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~0 City of G'ent~w~ Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Plannin~ Secretary City of Ce'[ttral faint Notice of Hearing EXIIBIT ttB.tt Date of Notice: August 11,1998 Planning Department Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING September 1, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Conunission will review applications for aVarianceandSitePlanReviewthatwouldfacilitatetheconshuctionofanewbuildingattheCityPublic Works Yard. The parcel is locatedinanR-1-6, Residential Single Family zoningdistrictonAssessment Plat 37 2W 11BB, Tax Lot 8200. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Variances and Site Plan Reviews are set forth in Chapter 17 ofthe 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 incommenting ontheabove-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the' close ofthe hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 1, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expirationofthecommentperiodnotedabove. Anytestimonyandwrittencommentsaboutthe 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~1 decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. . ~, , 4. Copies of all evidence relied uponby 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 contactthe Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthe meeting, the Planning Commissionwill reviewthe applications, andtechnical 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 or Site Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ~~V oP ~j\< ~~6 ~~e ~,~ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ., ., . ~ b . `ATTACHMENT G RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on September 1, 1999 unless an application fora building permit or an application for extension has been received: 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 andfederal regulations including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural `Specialty Code. 3. The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval prior to obtaining any building permits. ~`~ 1 ~ Y PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Central PoinfPlanning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Variance to fence height requirements at 1029 Brandi Way (372W11AA Tax Lot 5000). A licant .Owner:' Monte and Danika Bischoff. ,1029 Brandi Way Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent;.. Same , Summary: (Refer to Exhibits A&C) The subject parcel is zoned R-3, Residential Multiple-Family. AuthoritX; CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Variance. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Anulicable Law: CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-3, Residential Multiple-Family District CPMC 15.20.050 et seq. -Fence Height on Corner Lots CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances I)iscussion• Several weeks ago, Code Enforcement Officer Ron Barnett approached the Planning Department with questions concerning a six foot chain link fence under construction at 1029 Brandi Way. Under further Planning Department investigation, it appeared that the fence construction did have a building permit on file but the height of the proposed fence violated the Central Point Municipal Code. CPMC 15.20.050 requires that for all corner lots, no fence shall be higher that six feet; provided however that no fence shall be higher than three and one-half feet where such fence is within the required setback area. The applicants, Monte and Danika Bischoff were notified of the problem and have applied for a variance from the three and one-half foot maximum height within the required setback area in ~~. 24 ,E order to provide a safe, secure and private environment for their family. Last year, a'residence at 1061 Hopkins Road faced a similar situation when the property owner requested a permit to construct a six foot fence along Glengrove Avenue. Staff reviewed the zoning ordinance with the applicant and a decision was made to relocate the six foot portion of the fence out of the required setback area. While the parcels at 1061 Hopkins Road and 1029 Brandi Way are of similar shape and size, the useable rear yard varies due to the building footprint location. The 1061 Hopkins structure was able to retain a larger rear yard despite moving the fence but the configuration at 1029 Brandi Way would result in a smaller useable rear yard area. The proposed fence would be located on the side yard, and would not conflict with the sight vision requirements of CPMC 17.60.110. If the Variance were approved, the applicant would be allowed to complete the partially constructed six-foot chain link fence along the property line adjoining Glengrove Avenue. 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 2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following considerations do not app]y to the requested application: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city, The additional height of the proposed six foot fence would provide a more comfortable, private environment for the applicant's family. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The six foot chain link fence with sight restrictive slats would create a larger useable area for the applicants and would reduce the size of the landscape strip along Glengrove Avenue. c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, The six foot fence would provide a higher degree of safety for children who might be tempted to stray into Glengrove Avenue. ~~., 25 ,~ u•. d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, The fence would provide an additional degree of protection to the applicants but not necessarily the neighborhood or the city... e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The City. has not received any correspondence in favor or opposed to the proposal. f. The variance will utilize property within the. intent and purpose of the zone 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 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. xhibits: A. Location Map B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Application Package. D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions G:\PLANNING\98052. WPD .; ~ . 2 6 I~TCTT1-f J v ~~ Notice of Hearing Date of Notice: August 11, 1998 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen (erschler Planning Technician Deanna'Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary City of Central pint Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING September 1, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon ,,. CYty of Central Point EXHIBIT ttB.'t P1ann3ng Department Atthe above time andplace, the Central PointPlanning Commissionwillreviewanapplication for aFence Variance at-1029 Brandi Way, on Tax Lot 5000 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 11 AA. The subject parcel is located in an R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 15 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations,Off-strcetparking,Site Plan, LandscapingandConstructionPlans. Theproposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Anypersonintetestedincommentingoniheabove-mentionedlandusedecisionmaysubmitwritten comments up until the close of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, September 1, 1998. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the 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. Anytestimonyandwrittencommentsaboutthe 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 .,~. 28 •J 1 .~ ~ ~ 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant aze available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies may be purchased for 15 cents per page. 5. Foradditionalinformation,thepublicmaycontactthe]?lanningDepartmentat(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. S , sN."; ~ ~~: 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ~q APPLICATION FOR FENCE VARIANCE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION Name: Sl~~f\--\e, ~- ~Ca,~~k~ ~~Ji 5c,1 c7~ Address: 1~a~1 ~`CI~Y'~C~\ \>,1Cti~_ ~~,, ,,,~ GYty of Cenirpl Faint E~HI~I'T ~tCtt Planning Department Clty: e2n~C'o..\ ~Y~~ Telephone: Business: ~7~ -OIC~C~ Residence: ~0(9~(~ g 10 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name:. Address: City: _ Telephone: Business: Residence: 3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet if More Than One) Name: Address: ~~ Telephone: Business;__ ~( `7 ~"- O l c~~ Residence:, l`9 ~9 y~ ~ l 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Township: 3 ~~ GcJ Range: ll Section: ~!~ Tax Lot(s): Sip ~ Zoning District: ~ -3 Total Acreage: General Description of Variance: _~{~/iv~n 5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS This Application Form Application Fee ($200.00) rz--]-Plat I'.an & Elevatieas `,aWrrto ~I Scate-(49-Sets) (~r~/ One Copy of a Reduced Plot Plan & Elevations (8 1/2" x 11") J Written Authority from Property Owner if Agent in Application Process Findings (Addressing Criteria in Section 15.20.080 of the (/~~~)~~ antral Point Municipal Code) !'v egal Description of the Property 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 : [r] Property Owner or [ ] Authorized Agent of the Owner of the proposed,, ~ Q n nrnior4 cifc 1- e i ,,~ A• ~ EO~,,.~' .,~.R ~.~.~,,. _ _...............w.._.... - __ ..,..._.......-....~-~- -~ FenCe (.~n2 31 ,. ,`• 15.20.080 Variance The Strict application of the provisions of this chapter would result in unnecessary hardship; or ? Yes, this provision would create unnecessary hardship. It will cause neighbors and those walking by to feel uncomfortable as if they were infringing on our privacy. Due to the decreasing size of lots this would allow for leniency in creating more usable yard space. 2. The following considerations will either result from a granting of a variance or the following considerations do not apply to the requested application: a) The: variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city: Yes, the variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood. Again for the neighborhood, it would be more comfortable for those living across the street and walking by. They would not have look directly into our bay window or patio. For the city it would provide a more appealing yard. b) The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, Yes, the variance will provide beautification to bath the neighborhood and city. It would leave a space between the fence and sidewalk that can easily be maintained to look good as well as hide our back yard from the public in case it is messy atone time or another. c) The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, Yes, the variance will provide safety by keeping children, pets and their toys sixzGeebe-iwe~ins.'~te~ad~~~er`as4h~o~~ec ~ C~estre t. Will also ~r"ovi~~- 'FAY ~, d) The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, Yes, this variance will provide more protection by discouraging intruders from hopping over the fence into our yard. It will give us more privacy to hide our outside belongings & discourage theft. e) The variance will-not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. No, the variance will NOT cause any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. f) The variance will utilize the property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. Yes, it will provide us with a back yard where children and pets can safely play at home, family's can BBQ .Again it will allow us to utilize what space we have on our zero lot line property. ,~. ~ 3 2 1 li 1 I i -~.l ~ i EXHIBIT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The approval of the Variance shall expire in one year on September 1, 1999 unless a fence permit has been issued and construction has commenced and diligently pursued toward completion. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. e 33 , f q CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 18, 1998 - 7:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 429 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 21, 1998, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1- 8 A. aa~ontinuation of Public Hearing to consider a request by Michael Burton to vary from the maximum fence height requirements on property located at 1130 Mayfair Place in the R-1-6 zoning district. k~wot. 9 - 21 B. LDN Public Hearing to consider a request by Ted Branch for a Tentative Plan fora 15 lot subdivision inthe vicinity of WestPine Streetand CorcoranLane inthe R-1-8 zoning district. j i VII. MISCELLANEOUS rl VIII. ADJOURNMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: August 18, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing - To consider a Tentative Plan fora 15 lot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine Street and Corcoran Lane in the R-1-8 zoning district (372W10AB Tax Lot 5200; 372W10BA Tax Lot 9900; 372W10BD Tax Lots 100, 300 & 600). A licant Owner: Ted Branch P.O. Box 884 Rogue River, Oregon 97537 Agent: Herb Farber, Farber Surveying 120 Mistletoe Street Medford, Oregon 97501 Summary: The applicant has submitted an infill development proposal which is similar to one considered and approved by the City in January 1994. The same number of residential lots (15) is being proposed and a through road, rather than two cul-de-sacs, is being introduced as a 30' wide residential lane. A zone variance was previously approved by the City to relocate an existing dwelling. The subject parcels are zoned R-1-8, Residential Single-Family. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Tentative Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Annlicable Law: CPMC 16.10.010 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 16.24.060 -Through Lots CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. -R-1, Residential Single-Family District Discussion: The City has received correspondence from area residents and effected agencies who have identified some issues that will require additional time for both the applicant and City Staff to properly address. Issues include, but are not limited to; infrastructure, easements, access and the incorporation of adjacent properties into this development. Planning staff met with the applicant earlier this week to discuss the feedback the City has received. As a result of the meeting the applicants are making some revisions to the tentative plan and City staff are trying to clarify some issues with BCVSA. Therefore it is recommended that the Planning Commission open the public hearing to those who might not be able to attend a subsequent meeting and then continue the hearing and Commission deliberation to the next regularly scheduled meeting in September. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following action: Continue the review and public hearing for the Tentative Plan application to a specific date and time. Exhibits• A. Notice of Public Hearing and Location Map B. Planning Department Correspondence; July 22, 1998 to August 11, 1998 G:\PLANNING\98047. WPD 1® City of Central Point E'`"~"~'~ . PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director TCen Gexschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: July 20,1998 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING. August 18, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Begmning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review a Tentative Plan application fora 151ot subdivision in the vicinity of West Pine and Corcoran Lane. The proposed development islocated in an R-1, Residential Single-Family Zoning district on Talc Lots 100, 300, and 600 ofthe Jackson County Assessment Plat Map 37 2W I OBD, Tax Lot 5200 of Plat Map 37 2 W 10 AB and Tax Lot 9900 of Plat Map 37 2W l OBA. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Plans are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-streetparking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested incommenting ontheabove-mentioned land use decision may submitwntten 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 Poirit, OR 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-63$4 ~~ . decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission 4. Copies ofall evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Ha11,155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies 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 Commissionwill 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 Tentative Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. Subject Property 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 9'7502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 F. 4 decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to ' the Planning Commission. 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 purchased for I S cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE Atthe meeting, the Planning Commissionwill review the 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 Tentative Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. Subject Property ~~~~ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Poi~+ OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 sc c~ ~ Pg pgp \\ O W d U ~ ~z i 5 t` a frig s•~ A ` 'N Q .~" ~ 4n`e ~ c v a EE kx ~3 ~ \ ~ m W :sd"e ,". E Q§g ~a is-.-e E = ~u ~= ~ gR d. \ d Y i•a4°-b~ c W ~ E` dg' 'ru~' iS.. eF ~.~ grew u1111•q p \ ~ W "~O r m u7~ ~~~9a..f@~. . N N+'~y2. e'w ~-a. ~ \ ~ ~ i-`$ v &i+ii's:^ixys ds ~ . ya°ii u "-`'"-^-.,.t-.,.~.=~. ~ ~ ~ §x°^5 q ro o ~'8Q ~~;BYis•:a8y ~ ~ ~ ~y~ UN E iyupP \ Z ~~ p'] $G°i^~[aL5 Si ii m .W ~ ~'_ _ _ Pr. ~ ~ `\~` ~ H dY&^~ "~ ipe6bkp'1~e~Rti ONO ..... '_•• Y`. \ .~ vi p' J 9~t~ \ •Y .. ~ ,: ~~.~._ 02 X0.43 H.51 ..:0 ~ \ Ee~\ C.. R 54.E ~ \ \ P\1 6~PC Y ••'Y a e,., B Qj ?' .F H ~ .: •. J s \ d ~e^YdE4 EST da m Q -~ , Fd \` :\•\ iC€YCY e N td~ S o ~ P ~a.n 8 ,,, a ~ W A . 8 W ~~ .% 6~:: YS 8 ~•~ of 6 t`..• ~H~ ! k ._-- - ~ s . w.e ~ ~ ~'\ J ~ ` °O bane ~ ~~ S, ~• A ~-e\ !'t"•D i. !4s O oN ro F se's i~ • 9.~P rv~. ,- ~ ~~ \. .. ,.. ^ k N _ e' l¢jO~, k ~ 6 8 J n i 0 Q ~' / ~ \t Esc, \`. °o i ~• ,r .~ ~. i ... •.__~ _. _ __••~. __._- _______.l_ 00'K 10'N Oi OL W'OL pY0P1 B-~-Zf BUOZ 13 Ylannmg Department Exhibit B BEAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEDFOND, OREOOH 97691.9998 • (541) 779.4144 • FAX (541) 596.5279 July 22, 1998 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Subject: 98047 - TP Griffin Creek Estates Subdivision Dear Ken, We have reviewed the subject planning action with regard to providing sanitary sewer service to the project location. While we would like to have the proposed development connect to the West Pine line, the existing grade differential appears limiting. It was anticipated that the proposed development would require an extension of offsite sewer line through the existing subdivision to the North. A Grant of sanitary sewer easement has been made across lot 25 in the adjacent development. The width of said Easement does not conform to our Standard requirements, its location will result in an inaccessible manhole, a sewer mainline will have to be constructed outside the proposed PUE in lot 13 placing the manhole even further out into lot 13, and an extensive street cut and manhole installation in Palo Verde will have to be made. However unlikely another routing to Palo Verde should be attempted. The East side of lot 27 being the most beneficial access with resultant manhole being placed in Nadine Court Right-of- way, aconnection to the existing manhole in Palo Verde, and possibly no street cut in Palo Verde. Dependent upon direction of service to those lots adjacent to West Pine sewer construction could be minimized. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this planning action. Sincere , James May, Jr. P.E. District Engineer ~~ JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON JOSEPHLPSTRAHL,DIRECTOR 200 ANTELOPE ROAD WHITE CITY, OREGON 97503 (647) 826-3122 or (641) 776-7268 FAX: (541)830-9407 July 23, 1998 Attention: Jim Bennett City of Central Point Planning 115 South Second Street Central Point, OR 97502 RE: Planning File 98047; 15-lot residential subdivision Dear Mr. Bennett: Thank you for. the cpportunity to comment on the applicatian for Griffin Creek Estates, a 15-lot residential subdivision located on the north side of West Pine Street, across from Corcoran Lane. Roads and Parks Services has the following comments: The applicant shall submit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads and Parks Services and obtain county permits if required. 2. We recommend that half-street frontage improvements to West Pine Street be required to urban standards. Improvements shall include road widening, curb, gutter, drainage facilities, sidewalk and bike lane. 3. If additional right-of-way is required for the improvements, dedication should be required before permits are issued. City of Central Point standards may be utilized for road improvement if the City agrees, in writing, to future maintenance of the urban improvements. 4. The applicant shall obtain a road approach permits from Roads and Parks Services for the new Nadine Court road approaches to West Pine Street. The paved approaches shall have 30' approach radii and a 30' minimum width. We recommend no direct parcel access to West Pine Street. Jackson County Roads and Parks Services would like to review and comment on the hydraulic report including the calculations and drainage plan. Capacity improvements or on site detention, if necessary, shall be installed at the expense of the applicant. If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 830-6400 extension #230. Sincerely, €Yic Niemeyer Traffic & Development Section 0 ~~3~y8 D BEAR CREEK 27REENWAYEI ~~NDlN~E N0804 FLEET~MANAOEMENT / MOTORPOOL / PARKS / ROAD MAINTENANCE / VEOETA7ION MANAOFMENT 776.7268 826.9122 826.3122 776.7338 778.7001 826J122 826.3122 i5 http://207.82.250.251/c...2&smn=127709&len=9754 _ .~i~ Read Message In-Box hnp://207.82.250.251/cgi-bhilgelmsg7disk=...E&msg=MSG901342702.2&smn=127709&len=9754 i@ RELATED: The From: Arlen Hatleatad <kbb@grrtech.com> Save Address Block Sender To: "Tom Humphrey (E-mail)" <lthumphrey@hotmail.com> Subject: Tentative Subdivision Griffin Creek Eatatea Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1998 21:51:05 -0700 ~ Attachment Enclosed! It was a pleasure to meet with Jim Bennett and yourself on 7/22/98. We look forward to working with both of you and city offices as well as the developers of the tentative subdivision - Griffin Creek Estates. We believe that this subdivision offers good use of the land involved and will improve this portion of West Pine Street as a desirable residential area. Thank you for reviewing the plan submitted by Nadine / Ted Branch, and Bob Bauman and discussing our concerns for our property (T.L. 5100). We will be going forth with a minor land partition thus dividing this lot to make two separate lots as discussed in this meeting. Our concern is to flag this new lot from Nadine Court. We agree with Jim Bennett's desire to make road access from the new road created by the tentative plan for the Griffin Creek Estates subdivision. We further understand that it is not in the best interest of the City of Central Point to flag this new rear lot from West Pine Street. As tentatively discuss, the best access to the new road would be via either a "wandering" of the planned road so that it traverses through the new lot thus providing road access directly. Or to provide access via an easement or acquiring a small portion of one or both Lot 10 and / or Lot 11 allowing access via a short flag to Nadine Court. Moving the new road closer to T.L. 5100 would have the added benefit of not making so many properties in the subdivision just North of the tentative plan like "through lots". As we recall, having a road in front of and directly in the rear of existing lots to the North of the road was undesirable to the property owners on a previous submission of these subdivision plans and raised considerable objection. It is even possible that moving the road so as to traverse a portion of T.L. 5100 might make it possible to add an additional lot or lots to the Griffin Creek Estates tentative plan while preserving the R1-8 lot requirement. We are amenable to working with the developers to permit them to have more lots to offer with this development. As well, this might also avoid having lots 30, 29, 28, 27 and a portion of lot 26 of the existing subdivision to the North effected by having a residential road both in front and to the direct rear of their existing properties. We understand that you will meet with the developers of this new subdivision in the next few weeks to discuss our mutual concerns regarding T.L. 5100 and the proposed tentative plan. We will be available for discussion with your office and the developers after August 9th. Please keep us informed as to the progress of this project and to changes as they occur. We will be submitting our tentative plan for minor partitioning of loft 7/30/98 7:41 Ah -~ 16 '4l ulA ~ i~0i. _~1 '~1~J CIb 1 `R ;i,: r b,1,5~1„iu .d '.. fib, 'a.C(~`.o.: [;,id ': r ~a g~ 1 y'IPI r)t~3~(~ I` i. `.. sU'IUn;!,~Iff `~~~ ~ ~t. uol:h4tl~A i:~.l'-J~1 i~ pia ~^~,:~~~ Fi=; . h ^r a3kl~u>-~ a4x>,C8 c. Xiuc1l'~la(~ •.~av rs;; ui~+. p, 7,7 ~. (o.-,., I i..;l :.li ,n .uc:;.~: _...,. i _ ~ J ~i`~. - .,.,i i~l., Vc,l U; ''-'1'I ~,~ ~ .. ~i ._ ~ 'i ; ... ,.. .., '1 i i'1 __ ~ I'~1 .~... _ 1 ~ ~, ~.~. ~~ r. ~ , _._._ ~_ i. ~ i.~. ~ ~ ~ 'o I i~J'~ I~ I _ i. ~h ~ _ 1 ;"~i t 1 ~)~" i~ i I .: i I J r! I ~ ~ 1.1 t~ )' 1~ .. n n r l .... . '1111 ~ '~PV :c)I ._ I ~.. ~ I _, i h) 1~,1 ire it ~i 1 ~'VJO~1 it 1 L tl _ i i i t: .. 11 .. ~ ~ i.. ~;~liJ 1Cir u., I1 ~ ~ ,~ .. ~, ,.. r -~ ',iil9 i 1i i .. i ~ i .. n.f' ~, ,'.I~ .,. , ~ ~. _. , r.. „1 _ ,~ .._ _. ~ .~. i ui='v r. ~ a: .~i r ~ VI'-1~~ i i ..c ~r 1. ri '~.~i ~ ':n .. n I _ In :. i _. li,. i,..o _ ~.i ~ r I1 ~_~ ~ ,5 ~1. ~ ~~r ,. .~., .Itr .. ~l ~~: ~ i ~.~ ~ ~ ii' i". ..., 1~ ,, ~i-IL~~, ~. ... ~ ..;-icy ~ :-:i1 ~ r i 1 ~ I_I I n~. ~, ~ .. i - -, ~. _.~_, ~ ; ~[.i r~ ._-~,t cif.: .. ;1:;,.~ ,. _, _., 1 . _. 1~;; v1 .., i .. l ..i. p lmp://207.82.250.251/c...2&start=127709&len=9754 http://207.82.250.251/cgi-bin/gem~sg?disk=...E&msg=MSG901342702.2&etart=127709&Ien=9754 T.L. 5100 as soon as we can agree on best road access. We regularly read our e-mail and receive all postal mail at P.O. Box 15, Jacksonville, OR 97530. Again, thank you for your cooperation and help with our endeavors to develop this property. Sincerely, Arlen and Tina Hatlestad Property Owners of T.L. 5100 c~ Download Attachment: ~Mov Flo e to Selected Folder) ~ m 1996-1998 Hotmail. All Rights Reserved. [Contact Us~Heln] 2of2 7/30/98 7:41 Ab 1/ RE~ENV~® City of CENTRAL POINT City Staff & Planning Department r~Ua 31998' 155 So. 2nd St. CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 Ph. 664-3321 CITY QF CENTf3Al_ PA~Igust 3, 1998 TIME .. .............~....,.~.•-..m......,.-,- Attn; TOM HUMPHREY, PLANNING DIRECTOR Re; Subject, TENTATIVE PLAN APPLICATION for a 15 LOT SUBDIVISION, in the vicinity of WEST PINE STREET, & CORCORAN LANE.---AS per your notice of MEETING to be /~u~ 20', 1998. a,r;~ l~ Thank you for the NOTICE of this PUBLIC HEARING. As a property owner at 454 WEST PINE ST.,adjacent to the proposed SUBDIVISION, we would respectfully remind you of our letters, dated several years ago, MAY 12 1992, and JULY 13, of 1992. In fact, when a similar APPLICATION came before the CENTRAL POINT PLANNING DEF T, the thrust of the letters to you, were the same as we have TODAY. #1 Gaining ACCESS to the Property by THE CONTRACTORS, or SUB CONTRACTORS...We have already experienced"this, by a previous set of Contractors, several years ago, when they wanted access to the back of the property on PALO VERDE WAY. Please note that the PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH DRIVEWAY/PARKING LOT, and the tip of our property, is at the WEST END of the PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. WE DO AI9T want this to be a "CONVENIENCE" ENTRY for the DEVELOPERS, or any SUB-CONTRACTORS! We are aware of the proposed roadway „ but still has a house at the entry. (in 1992 was to be named NADINE WAY) We would respectfully submit 2 (two) CONTINGENCIES to the consideration of the approval of the APPLICATION.. #1THE HOUSE ON NADINE WAY ENTRY WILL BE MOVED or changed, in such a manner so as to let all traffic in & out of the PROPOSED SUBDIVISION to gain access without looking for alternate entry. ---THIS WILL BE at the BEGINNING, or PRIOR to any DEVELOPMENT of the PROPERTY IN QUESTION.... --ALSO, PRIOR to DEVELOPEMENT - #2 The DEVELOPER WILL-BUILD a PRIVACY FENCE along the WEST-"'~`' END OF THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION... WITH NO GATES.at least 6 FT HIGH, (72inches) from the north end to the southern tip of the WESTERN BOUNDERY of the PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. ( A good example can be seen at the subdivision on the NORTH end of 10th ST, now in progress) Thank you for the opportunity you have given us, as property owners, to respond with our concerns. If there are any quest- ions, please feel free to call, 664-2012.... RESPECTFULLY, C~%9~~""' ART & RUTH FRIESEN 454 WEST PINE ST. CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 C~~~ 18 ~- ~~a~ ~ ~~ v ~4 6 i ~- 19 STEVEN W.KEPHART 531 PALO VERDE WAY CENTRAL POINT, OR. 664-7128 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE EH..~~ ~'~~ fOG~-Nti/tiG, C~jI~1 Ml1s~OG~, I HAVE JUST BEEN INFORMED THAT THERE IS ANOTHER ATTEMPT TO PUT HOUSING BEHIND MY PROPERTY AT 531 PALO VERDE WAY. I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO HAVING NEW NEIGHBORS. HOWEVER DURING A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD NOT ALLOW PROPERTY TO BE LOCKED BETWEEN TWO ROADS. THIS'NEW PLAN' IS NOT NEW. IT WOULD PLACE A ROAD DH2ECTLY BEHIND MY PROPERTY AND WITHIN A FEW FEET OF MY SWIMMING POOL. THE ONGOING LII{ELHIOOD OF DAMAGE IN THE FORM OF CRACKS TO THE SWIMMING POOL IS SEVERE. THE LOSS TO ME AND MY FAMILY IN PROPERTY VALUES IS GREAT AND THE VIOLATION OF A CITY ORDINANCE FOR THE GREED OF A FEW IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE. THERE MUST BE OTHER WAYS TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WHICH DOES NOT HARM OTHERS. THEREFOR I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO'NOT' ACCEPT THIS PLAN. ~~~~-v~® ~U~,11199g~ CITY CF CE~TRAI-. pO1NT TIME ^`~~~~ Y TRULY ~~ TEVEN W.KEP T 20 To: City of Central Point Planning Department Re: Tentative subdivision-Griffin Creek Estates We live at 525 Palo Verde Way-I,ot 28-flagstone Subdivision. We are very upset, as we were in 1992-that this development places a street up against the fence of our back yard and that of our neighbors. If this plan is approved it will force a munber of losses onto us. #1--Loss of property value. If we wanted to move because of this development, who would want to purchase a home sandwiched between two streets. The selling price would surety be affected. #2--Loss of privacy. Since the field behind us sits about 3 feet higher that om• lot, anyone walking along the proposed sheet would have an unobshvcted view of our yard and home. 3--Loss of security. Having a road right there creates more access for anyone wanting to cause houble, ie. burglaiy/vandalum. 4--Loss of peace and quiet. Having this field behind us has always been a blessing to us. Since my husband must go to bed very early in the evening, it has been nice not to have neighbors behind us, But more importantly, since our bedroom is at the back of our house, it has been very nice that there has not been noisy traffic going through, especially the "booming" teen-agers. As a property owner I do understand the problems of owning an undeveloped piece of land but I feel this plan is very unfair to the families who have worked so hard and invested so much time and money to have a home that they enjoy living in. There must be another way! We have lived here 18 1/2 years and would appreciate some consideration. Would you want to live at my house if this plan goes through? If my concerns are not grounds to alter this roadway, we request that the developers be requned to construct a barrier along the properties affected-preferably a tall cement block wall like the one on Beall Lane. Something that will protect our privacy and our piece and quiet and protect us from this intrusion. Sincerely Mr. & Mrs. Ron Webster and family. ~Il~li ~ ~ 1998' CITV OF CE tIMF ~ NTgAL pQ1N'p ~~ o CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 21, 1998 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:00 p.m. 11. 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. Continua tion of Public Hearing to consider a request by Mich ael Burton t o vary from the maximum fence heig ht requirements on property located at 1130 Mayfair Place in th e R-1-6 zoning d istrict. 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: 11) 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. 12) 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. (3) 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 Burtons, 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 foot, 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. Pr~hlic Hearing to consider a request by Stan Renderer to vary from the front yard setback and review a Site Plan facilitating the exoansion and remodel of a commercial building on r~operty located at 60 North 4"' 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 L1 , I ~ 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 Ithe alley). A note was received from Central Point Florist stating their support of the application. Lee Brennan stated that Public Work's concerns are: 111 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. 12) 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; 13) 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. ,- PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: August 18, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Continued Public Hearing -Variance to fence height requirements at 1130 & 1134 Mayfair Place and 1158 Hampton Drive (372W12CB Tax Lots 7500, 7600 and 7700). Applicants/ Owners: Michael & Erica Burton Mark Soloman 1130 Mayfair Place 1134 Mayfair Place Central Point, Oregon 97502 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Tiffany Smith 1158 Hampton Drive Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Brett Moore 1461 E. McAndrews Road Medford, Oregon 97504 Summary: The Burtons initiated this request 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 a pedestrian path to a new City park (refer to Exhibits A&C). A subsequent meeting with neighbors resulted in this expanded the variance application and includes two additional tax lots. The subject parcels are zoned R-1, Residential Single-Family. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Variance. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Applicable Law: CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District CPMC 15.20.080 et seq. -Fence Variances 1 Discussion: The Commission approved Beall Estates III which included the development of a 2 acre park. 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 properly owners to provide access to the new park for city residents on the other side of Elk Creek. The fence variance that the Burtons and their neighbors are applying for creates more privacy for them while facilitating access to the new park. CPMC 15.20.040 states that the maximum height for fences on or along the back lot line shall be six feet. The applicants would like to vary from this requirement and will work out the ultimate type and height of the barrier to be constructed with City staff and the Council. They are asking only that the Planning Commission authorize a variance from the six foot height limitation at this time. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows: 1. The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or If all of the applicants are willing to cooperate with the City and provide public access via the sale or dedication of their property, it can be argued that the strict application of the municipal code (a six foot fence) would not adequately buffer a public bicycle and pedestrian path from their back yards. 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 park on foot or by bicycle directly instead of traveling south to Beall Lane which is not as safe a route. 2 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. f. 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 take one of the following actions: 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 Continue the review and public hearing for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits• A. Notice of Public Hearing and Location Map B. Planning Department Memorandum dated July 21, 1998 C. Planning Department Recommended Conditions G:\PLANNING\98043 B. W PD 3 Ylannmg llepartment City of Central Point ExhibitA PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director ICen Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/Planning Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: July 27,1998 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING August 18, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Atthe aboveplace andtime, the Central PointPlanning Commissionwill reviewapplications for aFence Variance onTax Lots 7500, 7600, and 7700, ofthe Jackson County AssessmentPlatmap 37 2W 12CB. 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 1. Anypersoninterestedincommentingontheabove-menfionedlandusedecisionmaysubmitwritten 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 Ha11,155 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 ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to theproposal and shouldbe stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 .,__ L~ 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 review the applications, and technical staff reports; 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~h~ i 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 5 ~; 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 7' 4" height was acceptable as it is consistent with 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 a 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. x l ~I I .,~~~~~22~ ' 13~I ii ~AN /Nr•H ~-MAYF i i Z 3' O n a x ~,s A I R~-- ~. ~~~ 7600/~ a2eac , /' i~~ 283 .~j.ZS 0 7500 0.30 Ac PLACE- ~ ~~ oz2 ac X13y 28a .9S i~~~ ,~ .. ,~ 28 2 rs.ss '' 7400. i`''` 0.24 Ac f d ~ ~ ~y ., ~ ~,~. 281 -~r~~,M . st ~ GVw ~_ w,r_ _ _ _ .. ~.~ 1AC ?800 0.28 Ac 1~3~ i~:.•~ • .y e ~ , EXHIBIT C PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 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:\PLANNBQG\98043 B. W PD O HUU-LI-`Jtf hKl Ub~[b Nf1 W Y NHIUKHL IiHJ hHri NU. b4l tl5C 4rau ~, ,„ 8-21-98 FAX MEMO TO CentralPofntPlanning.Department... Ken Gerschler, Planning Technician 664-3321 Fax 664-6384 FROM WP Natural Gas David McFadden ..858-4740 Fax 858-4790 Please include the following comments in your report. RE: Comments on Planning Action Applications File # 98063 Scheuneman Partition Freeman Road, Central Pofnt "' WP Natural Gas recommends that a 10-foot Public Utility Easement (PUE) be created along all public streets and highways within residential zones. This PUE area should be landscaped in a manner that will avoid conflict with current and future utility faciiities. Call Before You Dfg! 1-800 332-2344 It's The Lawl r uliul 3'7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: September 15, 1998 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review of 37 2W10AA, Tax Lot 7000 -Beck Duplex. Apnlicant/ Donna Beck Owner: 160 Haskell Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Darren Lecomte Image Builders 140:Brierwood Drive Talent, Oregon 97540 Property Description/ 37 2W lOAA, Tax Lot 7000 - 0.39 acres Zoning: R-3, Residential Multiple Family District Summary The applicant, Donna Beck has requested a Site Plan Review for the construction of a duplex behind an existing single familyresidence located at 160 Haskell Street in the Residential Multiple Family (R-3 zoning) District (refer to Exhibit A). This application has been forwarded to the Planning Commission because it involves the addition of new dwellings where on home is presently located (refer to Chapter 17.72.020 E). Authori 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. (Exhibit B). (1 ~~~ 38 ~i ~„ ~ n , Applicable Law CPMC 17.28.010 et seq.- R-3, Residential Multiple Family District CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking and Loading Discussion Darren Lecomte of Image Builders has applied on behalf of Donna Beck to construct a duplex behind an existing residence located at 160 Haskell Street. The subj ect parcel is located within an R-3, Residential Single Family zoningdistrictonJacksonCountyAssessmentP1at372W lOAA, Tax Lot 7000. The proposed 3200 square foot single story duplex would be connected by a common wall between the garages (refer to Site Plan in Exhibit A). The existing residence has been remodeled in recent years but does not have garage or carport which is required by the Central Point Municipal Code when a use is changed or increased (Chapter 17.64.030). In this case the code calls for a private 2-car garage or carport. There appears to be adequate room on the site for the construction of covered parking space. Landscaping for the project would include lawn areas along the periphery of the project with five additional trees in the vicinity of the duplex. The landscaping plan provided by the applicant indicates that an irrigation system will be installed to ensure a healthy growing environment. The Central Point Building Department will require a backflow prevention device for the irrigation system. A gravel driveway is proposed along the south property line that would provide access to the existing residence and the proposed duplex. The municipal wde requires that all areas used for off street parking, maneuvering be paned with durable materials for all-weather use and adequately drained. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law 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 ofthe 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 one for purposes of screening adjoining properly. -~~ 39 (1 The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan for consideration by the Commission. 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 project will access Haskell Street via a common driveway. C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such amanner as is compatible with the use for which the site is proposed to be used and.capable ofuse, and in such a manneras to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; The project meets the minimum parking requirements of CPMC 17.64.040 (A-1). 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 oftheir buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ Thereis no signage associated with this project. The CPNIC will require the address for the project to be displayed. 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; The project, if approved would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County Fire District Number three. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; The proposed construction meets the minimum setback requirements for the R-3, Residential Multiple Family District G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability inrelation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. The proposed structure is similar in architecture to other structures located within the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district. 40 8 ip ~ Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No'._, approving the Site Plan application for the duplex, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subj ect to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit C ); or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan Review application; or 3. Continue the review ofthe Site Plan Review application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits A. Site Plan, Landscaping Plan ,Building Elevations and Letter of Description B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Recommended Conditions of Approval -- 41 ~~. ~ L s EXHIBIT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on September 15,1999 unless an application for a building permit or a<r application for extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The project must meet the off street covered parking requu~ements for three dwelling units, and parking, accessand maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all- - weather use and approved by the public works department: 4. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan for staffreview and approval which includes the addition of covered parking to the existing single family dwelling; paved driveway and. an amended landscaping plan. The revised site plan shall be submitted priorto the issuance of a building permit. ~__ 42 „', ~. „ (Sty of C~nUrX! L~ul4t ~~HI:ST`~' ~~A« Plannigg pePu'hnen't 43 /ANDSGIYF F(AN 160 Haskell SGIIE•1"=20'-0" Tax Lot 7000 0 0 -fl T ~_ Z Z F 3 A O 1 <_ ~_ ~_ m v a q rs :s I n s' B R ~ ~ ,, E~ ~ ~~ w ~ CREATIVE DESIGNS I408RlFRWOODDRIVf IAlFN1,OR97540 BUS. (5411944~Y12 fAX (54U 535-6714 44 Ifllc'1~(. Bu11CkfS 140 Brierwood Dr. Talent, OR 97540 August 25, 1998 City of Central Point RE: Planning Commission To Whom It May Concern We propose to construct a duplex unit on a currently zoned R-3 parcel. The structure is positioned so as to comply with all required setbacks as well as e~dsting restrictions. Parking has been addressed very effedNely in that we are constructing (2)-endosed garages, One for each unit. If there are any questions related to this project please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Darren Lecomte °' ' ` SRe iooation: 160 Haskell Central Point, OR 97540 -- 45 City of Cenral Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerschler Planning Technician Deanna Gregory Administrative/P(arming Secretary Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: August 26,1998 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING September 15, 1998 7:00 p.m. (Approximate)" Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon ~~, ~,, ~, aty or cettzrai rQint ~XITI?:`T itg tt Planning Department At the above time andplace, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Site Plan to build a duplex on a residential lot also occupied by a single family dwelling. The proposed duplex would be located at-160 Haskell+Street;inan R-3,;Residential Multi-Family zoning district on Tax Lot 7000 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W lOAA. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17.72 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up.until the close of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday; September 15, 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 - - <,. -ahe.decisions :described above:will need to: be related to theproposal.and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 ., Q ~'i 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by fire applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies may be purchased for l5 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 231. UMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission.will review the applications, and technical staff reports and discuss issues relative to the application. Any 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 application. City regulations provide that the Central Point City. Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. :„. Subject Property ~~'S 4 - \ 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 /. i/ ~~~. 1 EXHIBIT C RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. 1. The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on September 15, 1999 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. 2. The projecfmust comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3 . The prof ect must meet the off street covered parking requirements for three dwelling units, and parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all- weather use and approved by the public works department. 4. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan for staff review and approval which includes the addition ofcovered parking to the existing single family dwelling, paved driveway and an amended landscaping plan. The revised site plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. aR