HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - July 20, 1999f~ tk
' CTI'Y OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
July 20,1999, - 7:00 p.m.
Next Planning Commission
Resolution No. 458
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
City Planning
Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyne Johnson, John LeGros,
Paul Lunte and Wayne Riggs
County Planning
Leon Hofford, Reeve Hennion, Don Greene, Larry Fowler, and Debbie Crouse
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINiITE5
A. Review and approval of July 6, 1999, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
Page i - 9 A. Joint public hearing of the Central Point and Jackson County Planning
Commissions to consider an amendment to Central Point's Urban Growth
Boundary (i.JGB) by adding 32.99 acres and establishing commercial and
open space comprehensive plan map designations. The subject property is
located on the east and west sides of Peninger Road and north of East Pine
Street.
---Break ---
10-20 B. Public hearing to consider a site plan introduced by Barbara and Stephen
Brown to modify an existing business at 841 E. Pine Street for a drive up
window. The subject property is located in the C-4 Tourist and Office
Professional caning district.
21-35 C. Public Hearing to consider a request by Victor Kosmatka to vary from the
City's standard off-street parking requirements. The subject property is
located on the north side of Cherry Street 140 feet east of North Tenth Street
in the R-3, Residential Multi-Family caning district.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
s,
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
July 6, 1999
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER at 7:05 p.m.
II. Roll Call: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Don Foster, Karolyn Johnson, John LeGros, Paul
Lunte was absent, and Wayne Riggs. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning
Director, Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, Matt Samitore, Planning Technician, and
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
Letter from Jan Dunlap announcing her resignation from the Planning Commission.
IV. MINUTES
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Planning Commission Minutes for
the May 4, 1999 meeting as presented. Candy Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL:
Fish, yes: LeGros, abstain: Johnson, yes: Foster, yes: Riggs, abstain.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Marilyn and Dave Wilbur, 312 Oak Street, came forward to ask about the Jackson County
Library's in their property. Tom Humphrey told the Wilbur's that the Planning
Commission doesn't have a development proposal and that if they were to call him, he
could direct them to the appropriate library official.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Public hearing to consider a tentative plan introduced by LaRue Development
L.L.C, to partition 4.52 acres of land into three commercial lots. The subject
property is located on the southwest corner of LaRue Avenue and South Peninger
Road in the C-4. Tourist and Office Professional Zoning District.
There were no ex-parte communications or conflicts of interest.
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning. Department Staff
Report. The applicants, LaRue Development L.L.C, is proposing a minor
partition of a 4.52 acre parcel into three parcels. The minor partition would create
a total of three parcels of 0.61, 1.18, and 2.47 acres with approximately 0.26 acres
dedicated to street right of way. The property is located near the intersection of
Larue Drive and South Peninger Road in the C-4 zoning district. The original
„~ x
master plan for Pilot Truck Center depicted a looped access between LaRue Drive
and South Peninger Road that could provide future access for parcels to the south.
Mr. Gerschler noted that since a bridge across Bear Creek is so expensive a single
access road and a cul-de-sacs are proposed to access these properties. Mr.
Humphrey mentioned that Jackson County Roads would like to be notified of
future developments on any of the new pazcels, but does not object to the
proposed partition.
Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, presented the Public Works Staff Report.
The Public Works Department has issues surrounding the existing infrastructure
and the impact of more development. The Storm Drain system in the area is
incomplete and a plan would have to be submitted in order for subsequent
development to occur. Mr. Brennan, also noted that an existing Traffic Analysis
would have to be updated. The Public Works Department requests a 10 feet
P.U.E. along any new road, or extension. Mr. Brennan recommended extending
LaRue Drive so that access to lot 2600, a flag lot, could be accessed. Lot 2600 is
too close to the off-ramp, to gain access from Pine Street. The Traffic associated
with the new development would also have to be addressed by the Fire and Police
Departments. An Erosion Control Plan would have to be completed because of
the vicinity of this property to Bear Creek. Mr. Brennan also stated that new
development will have to "loop" the water line because of the possible types of
business associated with this development.
Frank Pulver, agent for LaRue Development L.L.C., stated that there only
concerns were paying for access to LaRue Drive for another property owner.
They do not want to have to bear the costs of all the right of way requirements.
Mr. Pulver also told the Commission that the Pilot Truck Center does not have
access to Peninger Road South of LaRue according to his legal documents.
Further discussion revolved azound the extension of LaRue Drive and a
configuration that was suitable to the Public Works Department. The extension of
LaRue Drive will extend west, but not into Lot 2600.
There was no opposition to the project.
Commissioner Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution Number 454
approving the tentative minor partition of a 4.52 acre parcel into three
parcels, subject to staff reports. The subject property is located near the
intersection of LaRue Drive and South Peninger Road in the C-4, Tourist
and Office Professional Zoning District. The Commission would also like to
encourage the developer to satisfy the Public Works Requirements done
early, especially the Traffic Analysis update for the area. Commissioner Fish
seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
i~ ~
i
B. Public Heazing to consider a Variance and Site Plan Review to vary from front
and side setbacks and add 1335 squaze feet to an existing residence located at 484
Grand Avenue in a R-1-6. Residential Single Family Zoning District.
There were no ex parte communications or conflicts.
Ken Gerschler presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicant,
Michael Mallet would like to build a second story to an existing single story
home. To proceed with the plans, Michael has asked that the Commission review
the Site Plan and consider granting a variance from the minimum 20 foot front
yard setback and minimum 10 foot side yard setback requirements of the R-1-8,
Residential Single Family zoning district. If approved the applicant would
construct the two story structure within 4 feet of the westerly property line and 5
feet of the easterly property line. The face of the house would be located within
19 feet of the front property line. The maximum aggregate building coverage for
the R-1-6 district is 40 percent (2629.60 square feet). The total squaze footage for
the building footprint is 2322 squaze feet.
The Site Plan Review revealed that the applicants have yet to submit a
landscaping plan. The house is served by Grand Avenue to the front of the house
and an alley to the rear. They applicants would add a second covered parking
space in the back. Fire District Number Three will require a house address on
front of the house. If the Vaziance from the front and side yard setbacks are
granted, the project would be in compliance with the requirements of the Central
Point Municipal Code. Exterior improvements would improve the structure and
the neighborhood.
Lee Brennan presented the Public Works Staff Report. Mr. Brennan stated the
Public Works Department has questions about the housing setbacks and the right
of way, as it affects the driveway. Mr. Gerschler stated that he verified the
measurements and that there was enough space in the front to build the car port.
Mr. Brennan did not have any problems after Mr. Gerschler's report.
Betsy and Michael Mallet, 484 Grand Avenue, stated that they were willing to
work with all the City Departments in order to get the addition made to their
house. They also explained the design of the house and the situation surrounding
the space where a new car port along the side of the house will replace a
demolished garage.
Mr. Brennan had some additional questions regarding off street parking. It was
mentioned that no more than 2 off street parking spaces will be provided.
There was no public opposition to this proposal.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution number 454
t,
approving the variance from the front and side setbacks of an existing
residence located at 484 Grand Avenue in the R-1-6, Residential Single
Family Zoning District. The Front setback is limited to no more than 15 feet
from the property line. The applicants will work with City Staff to complete
the building requirements and the additional Planning Department
requirements for this structure. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
C. Review of the final development nlan for the Cedar Shadows. a Planned Unit
Development introduced by Dallas Page which includes subdividing 1.25 acres of
land into 26 residential lots. The subject property is located in the vicinity of
Freeman Road and Cedar Street in the R-3. Residential Multi-Family zoning
district.
Ken Gerschler presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The preliminary
development plan and a Conditional Use Permit for the Cedaz Shadows P.U.D.
was approved by the Commission on June 2, 1998 subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Humphrey explained that a Final Plat for the Mock Partition has not been
submitted yet, which affects the Cedaz Shadows development. In order to approve
the Final Plat for Cedar Shadows, a Final Plat for the Mock Partition would have
to be recorded. Mr. Humphrey also explained that this is usually handled in the
office, but a PUD requires that a final development plan be reviewed by the
Planning Commission.
Mr. Brennan presented the Public Works Staff Report. The public works
infrastructure associated with this development has not been completed. In
particulaz, the "looped" water distribution line serving the development has not
been completed. The sanitary sewer line has yet to be linked to BCVSA as well.
In order to get approval all easements must be acquired. A development
agreement and associated "bond" would be sufficient to cover the costs of
improvements and easement acquisition. The bond amount should cover
estimated costs for completion of the water line, or for rerouting the water line, as
applicable.
Dallas Page, Parthenon Construction and Design, is the contractor for the Cedaz
Shadows Development. Mr. Page described the easement problems associated
with this property. BCVSA requires a flow restriction and at the current time the
flow in Cedar Shadows does not meet this requirement. This has forced them to
get easements from Hopkins Road in order to meet these requirements. They
have built neazly all of the line, but are waiting for the last easements to be
acquired. Mr. Page also explained that he just recently got in contact with the
owners of the Green Briaz Mobile Home park and are making significant progress
in purchasing these easements. Mr. Page asked the commission to allow for
,~,
staggered housing setbacks to improve the aesthetics of the area. He also asked
for the ability to start building a model home once the easements were finalized.
Mr. Brennan and Mr. Humphrey agreed that in order for Mr. Page to start building
a new structure the water line must be completed and a final plat recorded. At
that time, the requirements would allow for the building of one model home.
Karolyn Johnson made a motion to adopt Resolution 456 to approve Final
Development Plan for the Cedar shadows Planned Unit Development. This is
pending acquisition of the easements and construction of a water and sewer
line. It is also pending Final Plat for the Mock Partition. The Site is zoned
R-3, Residential Multiple-Family and is located in the vicinity of Cedar
Street and Freeman Road. The Commission would also like to encourage
staggered front setbacks in the development. Commissioner Foster seconded
the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously.
D. Consideration of a request by USF Reddaway to vary from the fence reauirements
of the Central Point Municipal Code in order to insure adequate on-site security.
The subject property is located east and north of Hamrick Road.
Tom Humprhey presented the Planning Department Staff Report. Consideration
of the variance does not require a public hearing. Reddaway will be opening July
19"' and as constmction ended both the City and the applicants realized there was
agreement on the height of the fence. Reddaway has already begun construction
of the fence, but had to stop pending the outcome of the variance. USF Reddaway
wishes to build a 6 foot high fence with an additional 1 foot of barb-wire. The
taller barbed-wire fence would offer better security and so they are pursuing this
request for variance from the municipal code.
Mr. Humphrey went through the Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law. The
applicant stated that due to the industrial nature, parcel size and remote location of
their new facility there will be greater security risks to their business. The
additional height of the fence and use of barbed wire is part of Reddaway's overall
security system. The fence will be screened along its Hamrick Road frontages by
landscaping.
The City did not receive any correspondence opposed to the security fence and
adjoining properties such as LTM and the ODOT maintenance yard use similar
security fences. The construction material of the security fence is consistent with
municipal regulations in the Manufacturing zoning district however the height and
material used is not currently allowed in any zoning district.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 457 approving the
1, u..
Variance from fence height and material requirements in order to add three
strands of barbed wire and retain adequate security for an industrially
oriented freight forwarding facility. The fence will be 6 feet high with an
additional I foot of barbed wire. The subject parcel is zoned M-1, Light
Industrial. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL:
Motion passed unanimously.
E. Presentation of Bear Creek Water Ouali Management Plan by DEO
Representative Brad Prior.
Mr. Brad Prior of DEQ presented the commission with a short report on the kinds
of development that will be effected over the next few years, as DEQ starts to
enforce a new stream protection plan. Mr. Prior's main points were that all cities
located near Bear Creek will be affected by the new plan. Over the next few
years a gradual improvement program will come into affect. The Planning
Commission noted to continue the meeting beyond 10 P.M. This will start
with Bear Creek. Mr. Prior went through a short presentation on types of
developmental pollution. These included run-off, lack of riparian buffers,
construction problems associated with erosion, and storm drain problems.
VII MISCELLANEOUS
B. Ken Gerschler approached the council with a question about a new business at
235 E. Pine Street. A proposed Auto Parts store wants to move into the location.
Mr. Gerschler asked the Commission for advice about this type of business in the
Downtown. It was agreed that the business shall only sell auto parts, and shall not
deal in auto repairs or leave excess parts that will degrade the aesthetics of the
building.
C. Tom Humphrey informed the commission about the Naumes Family approaching
Jackson County with an expansion of the City of Central Point's UGB. Tom
suggested having a joint Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday July 20's,
1999 to review of this proposal. The Council agreed to the July 20"', 1999
meeting.
VIII ADJOURNMENT
~. ,
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
MEETING
DATE: July 20, 1999
TO: Central Point and Jackson County Planning Commissions
FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Urban Growth Boundary Amendment, Comprehensive Plan Amendment
and Zone Change
Applicant(s): Jackson County, Naumes, Inc. and the Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT)
Age°t: Craig A. Stone & Associates, Ltd.
Summary: Properly owners in the vicinity of East Pine Street and Peninger Road
have initiated an amendment to the City of Central Point's Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) and are proposing corresponding changes to the City and
County Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps. Proposed changes would
result in the addition of approximately 33 acres to the City's UGB.
Applicants are suggesting that 19 acres be designated for commercial use
and 14 acres be designated open space/greenway (refer to Attachment B).
Authority: CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Central Point Planning Commission with the
authority to hold a public hearing and review and make recommendations
to the City Council on amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and zoning
maps (Attachment C reflects the public notice given). Furthermore,
Major Revisions (as described in the Central Point/Jackson County Urban
Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement) are subject to a mutual City and
County review process. This joint meeting of the City and County
Planning Commissions is part of that process.
AQplicable Law: State Planning Goai 14, Urbanization (refer to Attachment D, Page 3)
OAR 660-04, Goal Exception Criteria (Attachment D, Page 3)
Central Point/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy
Agreement (Attachment D, Page 5)
CPMC 17.96.010 et seq. -Amendment to Comprehensive Land-Use Plan
(Attachment D, Page 5)
Oregon Transportation Planning Rule (Attachment D, Page 6)
of
piscussion•
The Central Point/Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement establishes a
procedure for joint review and amendment of the urban growth boundary and land use changes
which is the purpose for the public hearing.
At the public hearing, the task of the joint Commission is to review the staff report(s) and
supporting material, take public testimony, either written or oral, and recommend an appropriate
action to the Central Point City Council and Jackson County Board of Commissioners. The
Council and Board will consider the Commissions' recommendations, hold another public
hearing, and make a subsequent decision.
As required by the Department of Land Conservation and Development (DECD), a Notice of
Proposed Amendment has been sent to the state and circulated to various agencies (Attachment
B). This was done recently and the City has not yet received a response to the proposed UGB
amendment. Consequently, each Commission will need evaluate the proposal on its relative
merits and local public input. If state input is determined to be necessary, the hearing maybe
continued at the Commissions' discretion.
Commission members may note that the Scope and Nature of the Planning Action (Attachment
D, Page 1) states that a commercial comprehensive plan map designation is being sought for
some of the property -the land owned by Jackson County and Naumes, Inc. Comparing Exhibit
5 (Ownership Map) and Exhibit 6 (Bear Creek Greenway Map) of the same attachment suggest
:that a portion of the Naumes properly may be effected by Greenway designation. Commission
members may wish to clarify this point by either recommending that the Greenway designation
be better defined within the City or that the Naumes acreage be adjusted accordingly.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
The applicant's agent has prepared an extensive set of findings in Attachment D beginning on
Page 6, Section IV. Findings include, but are not limited to; a description of the area in
question; its relative value as farm land; environmental considerations as they relate to Bear
Creek; urban development of adjacent land and proximity of the subject property to public
utilities and City infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, etc.).
A discussion of Conclusions of Law begins on Page 20 and is the section that both Commissions
may wish to concentrate on in formulating a recommendation. Arguments are made regarding
the limited use of the subject property for ongoing agricultural operations, its urban
surroundings and its plausible development in supporting commercial facilities for the Jackson
County Fairgrounds. Redesignating approximately 14 acres as Bear Creek Greenway is
consistent with long adopted regional plans. There are also potential transportation and air
quality benefits in developing overnight accommodations and ancillary commercial services
closer to the County Exposition.
02
,~
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission(s) take one of the following actions:
Recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and zone
changes to the City Council and County Board of Commissioners as presented; or
2. Recommend approval of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments and zone
changes to the City Council and County Board of Commissioners with revisions; or
3. Continue consideration and the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Amendments
and zone changes to a subsequent meeting.
Attachments•
A. Jackson County Planning and Development Services Staff Report
B. Notice of Proposed Amendment (DECD Form)
C. Notice of Meeting
D. Application, exhibits and applicant findings (separate attachment)
A:199055.WPD
03
o~iosiss io: zo ~ ~ C PLAN AND Dev Attachment A
„,
JACKSON COUNTY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY AMENDMENT
STAFF REPORT
JACKSON Julys, 1999
covNTY
orcgon
^ Department File No.: 1999-1-UGBA
^ Type of Application: Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
^ Lead Staff Person: Laurel Prairie-Kuntz, Planning Director
^ Date of Ftiing: January 5, 1999
^ Applirants: Jackson County, City of Central Point, Naumes, Inc., and Oregon Department
of Transportation
^ AgenY. Craig A. Stone & Assoaates, Ltd.
^ Plan2oning Designation: Exclusive Farm Use (EFU)
^ Final Authority: Jackson County Board of Commissioners
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARYOFPROPOSAL
Applicants seek to amend the Central Point Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) to inGude property
consisting of 32.99 acres and to establish a commercial comprehensive plan map.designation for
some of the property -the land owned by Jackson County and Naumes, Inc. as described in the
application.
The subject property is located north off East Pine Street and east off Peninger Road. The property
is in four tax lots consisting of six parcels which are now planned and zoned by Jackson County as
Exclusive Farm Use (EFU). Two of the tax lots are divided by public rights-of--way.
RELEVANT CRITERIA
The criteria prerequisite to approving the subject application is as follows:
^ State Planning Goal 14: Urbanization
^ Goal Exception Crtterta -Oregon Administrative Rules Chapter 660, Division 4
^ Central Point -Jackson County Urban Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement
• Central Point Amendment to Comprehensive Land Use Plan
^ Oregon Transportation Planning Rule -OAR Chapter 660, Division 12
The spec criteria are recited verbatim in Section III of applicant's proposed findings of fact and
conclusions of law (Exhibit 1).
STAFF REPORT
Page 1
Central Potnt Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
Flie No. 7999-1-UGBA
07/09/99 10:20
~'
J C PLAN AND DGV
I~j 003
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The applicant has submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law (Exhibit 7) which
address each of the relevant criteria for an urban growth boundary amendment. Applicant's
findings of fact are in Section IV of Exhibit 1 and its wnclusions of law are in Section V of Exhibit
The Planning Director has carefully reviewed the application package submitted by the applicant
and finds the facts therein reported to lie true and that the conclusions of law are based upon
these. Therefore, the Planning Director herewith Incorporates and adopts applicant's findings of
fact and conclusions of law (including all of applicant's exhibits).
RECOMMLCNDATION
Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of lawwhich have herein above been incorporated
and adopted, the Planning Director recommends that the Jackson County Planning Commission
find that the burden of proof for an urban growth boundary amendment has been satisfied in full,
and recommend that the Jackson County Board of County Commissioners approve File No, t 999-
1-UGBA.
County Planning & Development Services
By:
[zoninglwp\19997 ugba.wpd[
STAFF REPORT
Papa 2
Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Amendment
File No.1999-1-UGBA
05
Attachment B
` NOTICE OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
This form must be mceived by DLCD a[ (east 45 days prtor to the t"mal hearing
ORS 197.610 and OAR Chapter 660, Division l8
See reverse side for submittal requirements
Jurisdiction -Jacksoi, County and City of Central Point
Date of Final Hearing SPntPmher 9 ~ t 999 Local File # 1 999-1 -TIr;RA
_ Comprehensive Plan Text Amendment ~ Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment
Land Use Regulation Amendment ~- Zoning Map Amendment
New Land Use Regulation
Briefly summarize the proposal. Do not use technical terms. Do not write "See Attached."
Jackson County, the City of Central Point, the Oregon Department of Transportation and
Naumes, Inc., hereinafter "applicants" seek to amend the Central Point Urban Growth
Boundary (UGB) to include property consisting of 32.99 acres and to establish a commercial
comprehensive plan map designation for some of the property-the land owned by Jackson
County and Naumes, Inc. as hereinbelow described. The subject property is located north off
East Pine Street and east off Peninger Road. The property is in four tax lots consisting of six
parcels which are now planned and zoned by Jackson County as Exclusive Farm Use (EFU).t
19.Olac Tourist Commercial/Office
Prof .esional
Plan Map Change From Exclusive Farm Use (EFU) t0 13.89ac Public Park/Open Space
19.Olac Tourist & Office Prof (C-~
Zone Map Change From Farm t0 13.89ac Bear Creek Greenway (BCG)
North off East Pine Street and east
off Peninger Road adjacent to Central
LOCatlon: Pnint ('.i ty limits Acres InVOIVed: 49.99 arrPa
Specified change in Density:- Current Density Proposed Density
14 Urbanization and
Applicable Goals: ..,,.., ~,,,.,,.,.-{ .... ...........ia Is an Exception proposed? ~ Yes _ No .
Affected State or Federal Agencies, Local Governments o[_Special Districts: DLCD; onoT; DsL
T1Fn^ Tarkann ('nnnty_; (`i ty of (` ntral Pnint
Laurel Prairie-Kuntz (541) 776-7554
Jackson County Planning Director
Tom Humphrey (~41 664-3321 ext 231
local COntaOt:Cerrtral~eitrt;-Manning-Btreet~r ~"r~0~e'
Addr@SS: Jackson County Planning Department
Medford, Oregon 97501
DLCD File # Date Recd # Days Notice
06
5n
''~
•
Tould .iq Oaw PmRedmd gdeld
(10.01 ToW Aaas) ~
1
6•.r c a~.~w.y
Interstate 6 (13.39 rca)
Central Point
Interchange
13.05 Acres
4.44 Acres
1.61 Cr s
PINE ST
...
Streets
N Stieams
/~/ uG6
NProposed UGB Expansion
:. • Central Point City Limits
Tax Lots
Naumes Family A
Central Point UGB Amendment !tJ\l
Z00 0 200 400 Feet
CeMrel Polnt Planning Department
7N6/99
O
City of Central Point AttachmentC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
ICen Gerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: July 9, 1999
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
July 20, 1999
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point and Jackson County Planning Commissions
will review an application to amend Central Point's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) by adding
32.99 acres and establishing commercial and open space comprehensive plan map designations. The
subject property is located on the east and west sides of Peninger Road and north of East Pine Street.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for UGB amendment are set forth in the Central Point/Jackson County Urban
Growth Boundary and Policy Agreement and Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code,
relating to Amendments to the Comprehensive Land-Use Plan.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 20, 1999.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 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 of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about
the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated
clearly to the Planning Commission.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
~" 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City
Hall, l55 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at
15 cents per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-
3321 ext. 231.
UMMARY OF
At the meeting, the Planning Commissions will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear
testimony from the applicants, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any
testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of
the review the Planning Commissions will make their recommendation to the Central Point City
Council and Jackson County Boazd of Commissioners who will also hold a joint public hearing.
~~
n°° ,~
~~
t~ >oao
~,~ >~
~:
s >~~
E3E E RD
eoo
wa
UG
'~Am d nt
Are
~~
m
Interstate 6
Central Point
Interchpn0e ,~
t
zmo zut Sao a~aa xao
uao xsaa
awo
uao vao
au,
Exhlblt 8
aha.m. a drdi..
ni&~,;„
Tax Lot Map
ru t.a. ew«,.aa.nwwgoue.iw...a,.nn. ceW,+...el N
un.~ wwm e oWe.n
u"" Central Polnt UGB Mnendment
ca+..i vowk
8 Midfoitl oec.mb.r te, rasa
M~Ma(p.p.NM4Yn. W. YG 0 Y] Atl FM
Street ~ Central
n`,:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: July 20, 1999
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing-Site Plan Reviewforadrivethroughwindowat841EastPineStreet(37
2W 02CC Tax Lot 4100).
Applicant: Central Point Perk
841 East Pine Street
Central Point, OR 97502
Business Owner: Barbara and Steven Brown Property Owner: Dennis Sullivan
P.O. Box 814 841 E. Pine
Phoenix, Oregon 97535 Central Point, OR
97502
Pro e
Description/ 37 2W 02CC Tax Lot 4100 - 0.23 acres
Zoning: C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District
Summary
The applicants, Barbara and Steven Brown have requested a Site Plan Reviewto construct a drive through
window at 841 East Pine Street. The addition of a drive through window would allow customers an
opportunity to purchase products without leaving their vehicle.
Authority
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a
decision on any application for a Site Plan Review. Notice ofthe public hearing was given in accordance
with CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B).
Analicable Law
CPMC 17.44.010 et seq.- C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District
CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking
CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval
;~~ 10
,,
Discussion
The applicant's Bazbara and Steven Brown have requested a site plan review by the Planning Commission
that would allow a drive through window to be installed at 841 East Pine Street in the C-4, Tourist and
Office Professional zoning district.
CPMC 17.72.010 et. seq. requires a Site Plan review by the Planning Commission for all new construction
requiring a building permit.
Bazbaza and Stephen purchased the Central Point Perk at 841 East Pine Street approximately one year
ago and the baked goods and beverage business has been populaz with residents and visitors alike. To
remain competitive, the business owners aze prepared to install a drive through windowthat would provide
vehiculaz service similar to the espresso business located near First and Pine Streets.
During thepast fewmonths, theBrown's havebcenpatiently waiting to sce howtheirdrivethroughproject
could be integrated with the proposed Rite Aid project since it was thought that the drive through could
be designed and engineered with a portion of Ninth Streetthat was vacated bythe City Council. Since the
Rite Aid activity has bcenpostponed indefinitely, the Brown's would like to proceed with the drivethrough
project by providing a site plan for the Commission's consideration.
The siteplan(AttachmentA)indicates thatthedrivethrough windowwouldbepositioned onthe eastside
ofthe building. Vehicular patrons would circulate fromNinth Street, throughthe parking lot, and up anewly
created driveway to the window with an eventual exit from the site via a rear alley.
Several potential difficulties in preparing for the driveway relate to topography, street width, access and
storm drainage. The existing juniper landscape strip alongNinth Street would need to be removed and
replaced with a retaining wall or other device designed to offset an approximate 3 foot elevational
difference between the building and the street.
The new driveway or any other improvements cannot encroach onto public property and therefore City
Staff would like to work with the applicants to determine the approximate property line.
The Public Works Departmenthas indicated concerns aboutthe changes to the existing traffic circulation
and storm water drainage that would result from the installation ofthe paved impervious surface. Please
refer to the Public Works Staff report for details (Attachment D).
An agreementmaybe necessary betweenthe property ownerand the City dependent uponthe vacation
of Ninth Street since some of the site improvements aze located on public property.
The BuildingDepartmenthascompletedaspecialinspectiondetemiining thatthewindowcanbeinstalled
on the existing building.
~~, it
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 constmction ofwalls 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
Commissionmayrequirethemaintenance ofexistingplants ortheinstallation ofnewones forpurposes of
screening adjoining property.
^ The construction of the drive through window would require the removal of a landscaping
strip that abuts Ninth Street.
B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid
interference with the traffic flow on public streets;
^ A drive through window will change the existing traffic circulation at the site. It is
uncertain whether on site circulation will be improved with or without the Rite Aid
development.
C. To provide off-streetparlcingandloading facilities andpedestrianandvehicleflowfacilitiesinsucha
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 proposed drive through window will not reduce the number of existing parking spaces.
D. Signsandotheroutdooradvertisingstructurestoensurethattheydonotconflictwithordeterfrom
traffic control signs ordevices and thattheyare compatiblewiththe design oftheirbuildings oruses and
will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs;
The Public Works Department may require on-site traffic direction devices to be installed
as a condition of approval.
E. Accessibility and sufficiency 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;
12
^ An approval of this application would be subject to any conditions that may be assigned
by Jackson County Fire District Number Three.
F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations;
^ The project as proposed is a permitted activity subject to approval by the Planning
Commission.
G. Compliance with such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation
to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs.
^ The drive through improvements are similar to other service-oriented businesses in the
C-4 zoning district.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt ResolutionNo.~ approving the Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval
(Attachment C ); or
2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or
3. Continue the review of the Site Plan at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments
A. Site Plan, Building Elevations
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Planning Department Conditions
D. Public Works Staff Report
13
v7~~~T
~ '' -
SGOP~
L
- ~SLav~'
CL•~vl'RA~L ~ol~l7'
Q'212 K
8~! E'. ~.twE' sr
S~Urw+9~
~~.~~I
9•DDI?~~~'i-
D.rzt~2wv~~
/hoc a3 5
--. S~aP G'
i~
~J
~~-~'~
E~ 62~v,.np
w
H
h
--- _ _ _ __
~.~
GYty of CPSitr~tl PuinE
~xxrs~r~c ttA tt
Planning Deparimea't
W n
~n-v
I~ ~
~~
i_ ,~,~
,St1zr2`T' ~ ~r•O C ` ~
SLOPE ~ I CC
2 ..
~ ~.+ ~ ~'
~~ ~~
~~ ~
., ~
-,
P~,uc.
N
BK~ F. P~*~~ Sr .p h
~N ~ ~
'~AR,I~-~~j
f}~oSl',ra ~ A ~
XSI~T~'-~'~
a,zrvt,N~-y
~~~~s
~'
I ~
~~~~ I
h
G~~
~~sc'b 6/~aMno
Sc'k~ ~/3 = {' ._ ~RO t'~G5 ED ~i39NZi
Z00 /Z00'd LBOZ# Sfl SI1IdH3SN9 QN'd'I3d03
~~
~ ~ y1 VlT~I~~ Z ~ ~l
T8846L4TbS 55~EI 666T,5T"Tnr
~~~
r~
.o--~---- ?z~--oH -r
QP?~s
C~ ` ~crrbur ~"~~
1~~~N
1Z-~ 4a~o~ ~ s~Fw9+-rte
_ q~
3'-,0 ~~
~' EKE Es"
~r..~r~-r~a~r
s~L~ 3~3zM ~= 1 ~
- 16 ~A~r 3 ~` '-~'
V
~~
k
~, W
r
_4
Y
N
m
~~
1~
~'
~~
~~
~~
11
~' ~~
h
~~~ y ~ '~
City of CentYal Poznt
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Deanna Gregory
Administrative/Planning Secretary
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: July 7, 1999
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATURE OF MEETING
July 20, 1999
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
CYty of Centrai Point
EXHI~I`T t'g't
Planning Deparimen't
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application
for a Site Plan Review that could allow the construction of a drive up window for a business at 841 East
Pine Street. The subject parcel islocated in a C-4, Tourist and Office-Professional Zoning District on
Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W02CC, Tax Lot 4100.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code,
relatingto 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
Any person interested incommenting ontheabove-mentioned land use decision may submit written
comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 20, 1999.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Ha11,155South
Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
18
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384_
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the
decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to
the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, I55
South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per
page.
For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext.
231.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, hear testimony
from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or
written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the
Planning CorrunissionmayapproveordenytheSitePlanReview. CityregulationsprovidethattheCentral
Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions.
~~F ~r~~
~ \~
< \ Y~C \~i~\~F~
J
1 I I
SUBJECT PROPERTY
~ ~
N
19
Vy
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
ATTACHMENT C
RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on July 20, 2000 unless an application
for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including,
but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty Code.
20
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: July 20, 1999
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Tom Humphrey, AICP, Planning Director
SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Variance from Off-Street Parking Requirements atthe proposed East
Cherry Estates Subdivision. (37 2W 02BC Tax Lot 603).
AQplicant: Victor and Daniel Kosmatka
Owner: 3094 Wells Fargo Road
Central Point, OR 97502
Pro e
Description/ 37 2W 02BC Tax Lot 603 - 0.82 acres
Zonine: R-3, Residential Multiple Family
Summary
The applicant, has applied for avariance from the two car off-street covered parking requirements for the
tentatively approved East Cherry Estates Subdivision. If approved, the variance would allow a single car
garage to be constructed for each of the eight padlot dwelling units within the development.
Authority
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a
decision on any application fora Variance. Noticeofthepublichearingwasgiveninaccordancewith
CPMC 1.24.060. (Attachment B).
AQalicable Law
CPMC 17.28.010 et seq: R-3, Residential Multiple Family
CPMC 17.60.010 et seq: General Regulations
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking
CPMC 17.80.010 et seq.- Variance
21
Discussion
The applicant, Victor Kosmatka has requested a variance from the off street parking requirements for the
tentatively approved East Cherry Estates Subdivision. Mr. Kosmatka has designed his own floor plan
which attempts to de-emphasize the garage. His request for the variance is based upon aesthetics,
affordability and a precedence that was set for single car garages on a similar padlot development across
the street.
A request by the applicant for the variance is based upon aesthetics, affordability and a past precedence
for the approval of single caz garages on a similar padlot development.
CPMC 17.64.040 (A-1) requires that single family dwellings provide a garage or carport not
accommodating less than two parking spaces for each dwelling unit.
Mr. Kosmatka has submitted fmdings (Attachment A) stating that the smaller garages would increase the
distance between each unit and reduce the overall cost for first time homebuyers without affecting the
quality and attractiveness ofthe entire development. The site plan indicates that the distance between the
structure and the side property lines would be 5 % feet. The minimum setback for single story structures
in the R-3 zoning district is 5 feet.
Garages of the same approximate dimension were allowed to be constructed in the Bluebird Heights
Subdivision. The residences in Bluebird Heights have garages of reduced size since the City of Central
Pointhad no minimum garage dimensions inplace. To meetthe intent ofthe offstreetpazkingrequirements,
a builder only needed to demonstrate that two cars could fit in the gazage since there were no minimum
garage size dimensions in effect for the City. Unfortunately, the building requirement for "portal framing"
and the corresponding reduction in "garage door" size led to a garage dimension in which only one car
would fit. The Building and Planning Departments have since determined that a two car garage can be no
less than 20 feet wide by 19'/z feet deep. The proposed garage dimensions for the East Cherry Estates
Subdivision would be approximately 15 %2 feet by 22 feet..
Ms. Dorothy Harris of 400 North Tenth Street has submitted a letter of opposition to the variance citing
concerns that there are an excessive number of vehicles parked on Cherry Street now.
22
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
Variance
A variance may be granted if findings are made as follows:
1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as beautification or
safety.
^ A variance from the required off-street parkingwill not necessarily provide an advantage
to the neighborhood in that therewould be a greater inclination forthe future homeowners
to park on the street. The applicant's proposalwould de-emphasize the garage as part of
the overall building design.
2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood.
^ If thevarianceweretobeapproved,futurehomeownerswouldbeparkedinthedriveway
or on the street. This is the case with an adjoining padlot development as reported by a
neighbor.
3. The Variance will utilize properly within the intent and purpose of the zone district.
^ ThesubjectparcelislocatedinanR-3, Residential Multiple Family zoningdistrict,which
allows higher residential densities and lesser parking requirements.
4. Circumstances affect the property that do not apply to other property in the same zoning district.
^ There are no apparent differences between this and other parcels in the surrounding area.
However, a precedent was set in an adjoining development which has constructed 3/4
garages.
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 applicant received a tentative approval of the East Cherry Estates Subdivision on
December 15,1998. Mr. Kosmatka has designed his own floor plan.
The applicant has submitted findings for consideration by the Commission (refer to Attachment "A").
23
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt Resolution No._, approving the zone variance subject to the recommended conditions of
approval (Attachment D ); or
2. Deny the proposed zone variance; or
3. Continue the review of the zone variance at the discretion of the Commission.
Attachments
A. Site Plan, Building Elevations and applicant's Findings
B. Notice of Public Hearing
C. Correspondence
D. Planning Department Conditions
E. Public Works Staff Report
24
~~
.......:.. .
\ CYtp of Centr#1 L~ufnE
\ \ ` ' E~HI~I'T ~tA~t
~ ~i I
+ P12IIII1R$~ DCplJI'II1Ltll~
t
r
\ 8 ~`~ ~_
~.
\ ~
\ ~. ~ ~;
~~ 1 S.
/` _ ~ ~ ~'
\ \yep i' 4~. ~w ~ ' T
/\ p~. ~ ~ i
~ ~ 4' ~'.
~~ \ r /
/ ,.
~`PO / ~ ti $
e ~ ~ \ ~
4a ~ ~` C.
• ~ I ~ l
~ ; ~ .w
~ / ~3 ~^!
~+ j ~ ~ /\\
i
~ ~~ c ~
~ ~ ~ ~
...
~ 1
&$ ~
p _ - _ _
F p
~ 1
m
u
~ _ ~
~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ vw~w w~ INwuul Vlefoti KOSHM'KI~ K~i61G ~=1t1 •aec~
VIG'fDR K05MA'fkA ~ulLDtiR
~ "' ~ ~ ~ L~Hff1G - ~a•aoH pW1E~ KGSMkfKA nt•ccro - ~o~•isw
a ~B .,+~,., _ V 2 5
~ \; i
~ ~/
\ i ~
\ ( ~ ;.
y
~ e .~•
~ ~.
~ ~
r"o ~. ~' ~ R ' / /
'~ 1. ~ •~
b ~ ~ .y ~ IIL+: S
/ / ~ \ \'S'4,4 R. 4i. 1~ e ' ~y 1' L ~'
e ~\ e/. i g L
4i. h
f,
~ \ T l I ~ ~ /
,~ ~ ~ ~ ...
r i~ R. ~.
`.Ne / c ~ 'a.. ~.
tiY Y ~~ ! ., .
Sa / ~ ~,
`y
a ~ Ca ~ ~
~ ~ Y z
~ S ~\ ~ - -
/.ay M
~_ ~~ % \r
~ ~
3 ~
~ ~ ~ ,'
I
1 ~
a$ I
p ----~ I _
k~ ~ ~ -
y
M
U
~ ( 1 ( ( ~ ourJ 4y! ':'_ '. OwNMS~.i YKTSti KOSNA'rKh..ti~~{61C'=+ /H=afN ~ .
ViGTOR KOSMA•rKA BUILDER" y~
~ £ { L/Y'4S1L - /L •4oil _ ' ' pAEIIEL ry,MATYJ~ 777.64{D,- 77¢»744
_ ~ s ue .,+L., ~ 2 6
~,
~ I
I
' I
i I
. ~.
i
;;
,_ :~
~,
;• .: ~ ~,
~ ~~
•1'• .Y
• :w ~r:
56~:6~
i
~e:o---~ w e•-~.-
• ~ ~«
x
~, a~
"r
®~a
®~®D
~®®~
~n ~®~D
o,~
~®®D
nnn~n
r
~~
i; mp
,.m
op
,<
~~
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is to build eight units, each with an oversized single-car garage,
on lots with a maximum width of forty feet.
The eight units have been designed as pad lot homes. A nationally recognized
design that conserves space, allows attractive landscaping and affordable pricing
for a first time home owner. Each unit is 1250 square feet, single story, one car
covered pazking, developed to conform to and best use the lot configuration.
The homes have an efficient floor plan for comfortable living, privacy and
street appeal.
The units are consistent in having single car covered parking as with the much
publicize and accepted developments of Jackson Creekside in the city of
Jacksonville and Chautauqua Trace in the city of Ashland. Our eight unit
East Cherry Estates development just as the afore mentioned developments,
breaks away from the old conception of affordable housing which traditionally
has meant homes of lesser quality and inferior design and appeazance.
29
r
~°
FINDINGS OF FACT
ADDRESSING CRITERIA IN SECTION 17-80 OF THE CENTRAL POINT
MUNICIPAL CODE.
1) A variance is being requested, because we believe the interests and needs for the
citizens of Central Point and the Rogue Valley will be met by offering;
A) Quality, attractive housing
B) Less lot coverage,resulting in more open space between buildi::b.,
C) Reasonably priced housing for families moving up from renting
to first-time home ownership
D) Timely and orderly development of open lots to enhance the beauty of this
neighborhood.
E) Providing anoption -- single-car garages in place of double-car garages
that reduces costs for first-time home buyers.
2) hi an effort to protect the best interests of the surrounding properly owners, the
neighborhood, and the city as a whole, the projected buildings have been designed
to complement what has already been built in the area. Properties to the left and to the
right of the property that is the subject of this requested variane have simple carports
for covered parking.The Tom Malot Construction Company recently built twenty-two
units (eight units across the street to the south of the subject property and an a
additional fourteen units on property adjacent to the eight units, also to the south) all
with single-car covered parking. These units have a pleasing appearance and have
popular appeal. They in no way detract from the neighborhood.
WE ARE ASKING YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR GRANTING THIS VARIANCE FOR
THE FOLLOWING REASONS:
1) The variance will make possible added advantages to the neighborhood in the matter
of safety. Currently the subject property is vacant and must be mowed each year as a
fire safety measure to protect developed properties adjacent to it.
2) The development of the subject property will add to the beauty of the area. The
undeveloped property collects litter that is unsightly and may constitute a danger
to children who enter there. Plant growth there dries up and is unattractive
for many months of the year. When developed, housing with single-car garages
allows for more setback distance from all sides of the property. This results in more
open space, more garden landscaping and trees which will add much to the beauty of
the neighborhood and the city.
30
~ ,~ A n
3) The variance will have no significant adverse impact upon the neighborhood.
On the contrary, the contemporary residential design with single-car garages is
complementary to the single-car homes recently built across the street from the
subject property. Since a precedent has been established for the neighborhood
to have single-car garages, it would appear more consistent with a general plan
that both sides of the street have the advantage of that feature.
4) The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone
district, building less than the allowed number of dwelling units in an R-3 zone.
5) The conditions for which this variance is requested were not self-imposed. The
properties surrounding this parcel have been totally developed. In an effort to
utilize the dimension of the eight lots in the subject property in the best manner
possible, a narrower and deeper floor plan has been designed. This design txnll
provide both comfortable living and street appeal.
In summation, a variance allowing the building of single-car garage homes on the
subject property would result in a residential development that complements and fits
into the existing neighborhood. It would also enhance community efforts to provide
affordable housing that is, at the same time, of good quality and attractively designed.
It would have no significant adverse impact upon the neighborhood, but would instead
add value and beauty to the city.
31
City of Central Point
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning Director
Ken Gerschler
Community Planner
Deanna Gregory
Administrative/Planning Secretary
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: July 7, 1999
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
July 20, 1999
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATURE OF MEETING
CYty of Central faint
E~HI~I3' ttB.tt
Planning Department
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application
fora Variance fromthe standard off-strcetparkingrequirements ofthe Central PointMunicipalCode. The
subject parcel is located in a R-3, Residential Multiple Family Zoning District on Jackson County
Assessment Plat 372W02BC, Tax Lot 603.
CPMC 17.64.040 requires that all single family residences provide two covered off-street parking spaces.
The applicant has askedthe Planning Commission to consider a Variance that would allow a single covered
space for each residence.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Variances 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
Variance is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person intemsted in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written
comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 20, 1999.
2. Written comments may be sent in advance ofthe meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South
Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
32
d .6 ~''"
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 cleazly to
the Planning Commission.
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 of the same are available at I S cents per
page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321 ext.
231. Please refer to file 98073-VAR.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
Atthemeeting, thePlanningCommissionwill reviewtheapplications,technical staffreports, hearteslirnony
from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or
written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the
PlanningCommissionmayapproveordenytheVariance. CityregulationsprovidethatlheCentralPoint
City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions.
JEW.
ELEME
SCH
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384
:~
~ ., ~,.r
Qity of Centr~I tMlnC
~xxr~r~r «C„
~a~~g n~u~m~~
~.~;~~ ia, l y'9~
ors ,,,t%h~- ~.~?~cn~oq ~n~-a-a.~z-,
.~~.~~
.. ~ ~~ ~~~
~ ~~ ~ ~~ v~~°~~~~
~ ~~~~ ~~
~ h~~~~~~.~.~~~~~
haute .~~~ .~~~ ~o ~ ~~.
~c~~ad ~ ~9~~~~
L 3 1999 D ~/~p ~, /D~d`f
JU 1 L'e~2~~~ ~~
34
Y d.., i'.~~.~
ATTACHMENT D
RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
The approval of the Variance shall expire in one year on July 20, 2000 unless an application
for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City:
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including,
but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and CABO, one and two family dwelling code.
35