HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - February 6, 1996~,
,~ III,
IV
V
VI
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT `. a s- ~ ~,, ~ ,, ti ,,
PLANNING COMMISSION ~ ~ » ~- >1
MINUTES ~~ ~,(d
January 16, 1996
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 P.M.
ROLL CALL -Those present were: Chuck Piland, Jan Dunlap, Herb Farber,
and Candy Fish.
Valerie Rapp notified the Commission that she would not be able to attend
due to illness.
Karolyne Johnson notified the Commission that she would not be able to
attend.
CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence
MINUTES
Commissioner Fish moved to approve the December 19, 1995 Planning
Commission Minutes as written. Commission Dunlap seconded the motion.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap, yes; Farber, yes; Fish, yes.
PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances
BUSINESS ,
A. Public Hearing -Continued Public Hearing regarding Tentative Plan
Application for Unit No. 7 of Jackson Creek Estates Subdivision
located on Beall Lane east of where Hanley Road int rc -te B all an .
f37 2W 10C TL 30001 (Applicant: Tom Malot Constructionl
Chairman Piland read a letter from Tom Malot Construction requesting
that the hearing be rescheduled for the next Planning Commission
Meeting.
~~~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
,. January 16, 1996 -Page Two
Commissioner Farber made a motion to continue this Public Hearing
to the next Planning Commission meeting. All commissioners said
"aye" and the Public Hearing will be continued to the next Planning
Commission on February 6, 1996.
B. Public Hearing -Review and determination regarding Tentative Plan
(Minor Partition) for ~perty located within Briarwood Village on
corner of Hopkins Road and Briarwood (37 2W 11 AC Tax Lot 105001
IARplicant: Terry Buntin)
Sue Riegel, Interim Planner, reviewed the Planning Department's Staff
Report.
There were no conflicts of interest or ex-parte communications.
Paul Worth, Public Works Department, reviewed the Public Works'
Staff Report. Paul distributed a map that was not included in the
packet that would help explain the traffic configurations on the
corner. Paul stated that because construction had been started and
" the access to the garage had already been established before getting
approval on the tentative plan it influenced the way the Public Works
Department had to configure the driveway access on that particular
parcel. The Public Works Department felt that the condition No. 2,
paragraph 2 mitigated a traffic stacking problem at Hopkins and
Bursell.
The applicant, Terry Buntin, 2811 Leonard Avenue, Medford, Oregon,
came forward and stated that they will put in the turn grounds and
the signs so the residents will not back onto Hopkins. Mr. Buntin
stated that he was aware of the water and sewer situation and heard
the recommendations from the Public Works Department and it would
not be a problem.
Commissioner Fish expressed concern that if there is a future
realignment and traffic signal on Bursell and Hopkins there may be a
stacking problem in front of the driveway.
Chairman Piland closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Farber made a motion to approve Resolution No. 339,
the Tentative Plan for the Partition for property located within
Briarwood Village on corner of Hopkins Road and Briarwood (37 2W
,. 11 AC Tax Lot 10500) (Applicant: Terry Buntin). Motion was
seconded by Commissioner Dunlap.
2
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 1996 -Page Three
ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap, yes; Farber, yes; and Fish, no. Motion
passed.
C. Public Hearina -Review and determination regarding Tentative Plan
(Minor Partition) for ILperty located near Beall and Bursell Roads (37
2W 11 D Tax Lot 22021 (Applicant: Herb Farber for Michael E.
~Ilivanl
Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing.
Sue Riegel reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report.
Commissioner Farber declared a conflict of interest and took a seat in
the audience. There was no ex-parte communication.
Paul Worth reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. Paul stated that
this property is encumbered with a Deferred Improvement Agreement.
Paul also told the Commission that the Staff Report states there is no
sanitary sewer on Beall Lane as the applicant's maps indicate.
BCVSA said there is not one. There is an 18" stub there now and it
may be extended in the future. Paul indicated there were no City
fire hydrants close to the property which may mean they will have to
put in fire hydrants.
The agent for the applicant, Herb Farber, 908 E. Jackson, Medford,
Oregon, came forward in favor of the Tentative Plan. Mr. Farber
submitted a copy of the last survey map on the lot line adjustments
on the property. He had a question on the condition for the street
light and the spacing involved. It was suggested that there be a
discussion on changing the wording on condition #7 to indicate that
the Developer may be required to install the street light if PP&L will
not put the light up without charge.
Paul Worth said he would have to confer with the Public Works
Director on the street light spacing.
Chairman Piland asked Paul Worth to develop the wording on the
street light condition.
Chairman Piland closed the public hearing.
Chairman Fish made a motion that the Planning Commission pass
~~ Resolution 340 to approve the Tentative Plan (Minor Partition) for
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
~. January 16, 1996 -Page Four
property located near Beall and Bursell Roads (37 2W 11 D Tax Lot
2202) (Applicant: Herb Farber for Michael E. Sullivan) with the
attached staff reports and the change in the wording on Condition #7.
The motion was seconded by Jan Dunlap. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Dunlap, yes; Farber, abstain; Fish, yes. Motion passed..
D. Public Hearing -Review and determination regarding Conditional Use
Permit Application for Apolication for OSP Property to allow the State
Police Headquarters Office Building in the R-2 Zone (Applicant: State
of Oregon)
Chairman Piland opened the Public Hearing.
Sue Riegel, Interim Planner, reviewed the Public Notice.
Wes Reynolds, AICP, 1265 Munson Drive., Ashland, Oregon,
reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. Mr. Reynolds stated
~~ that this hearing is concerned with only the Conditional Use Permit
but the Commission may want to address the Conditional Use Permit
and the Site Plan at one time.
There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte communication.
Mike Thornton, Thornton Engineering, 670 Superior Court, Ste.210,
Medford, Oregon, reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. Applicant
was informed of ODOT's concern for maneuvering.
Wes Reynolds reviewed the Planning Department Conditions of
Approval for the Site Plan and the Conditional Use Permit in addition
to the Site Plan. Mr. Reynolds passed out new site plans. There
were some minor changes from the original in the packet. The radio
antenna will most likely exceed rthe 35' height restriction and a
variance to the height requirement is now included in this application.
Agent for the applicant, Tom Hague, Project Manager, Department of
Administrative Services, Facilities Division, Oregon State Police spoke
on behalf of the application. Mr. Hague indicated they were in
agreement with the staff report.
Mr. Bill Leever, 1060 Crater Lake Avenue, Ste. C, Medford, Oregon,
came forward on behalf of the application. Mr. Levin is co-owner of
Pulver and Leever Real Estate, owners of the parcel south of the site.
They are very much in favor of this development. Mr. Leever felt it
was critical that assurances be built into this approval process that
G.
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
,, January 16, 1996 -Page Five
ODOT will allow them to use this access to their property if they
cannot develop their own access.
Mr. Wallace Skyrman, 4588 No. Pacific Highway, Central Point,
Oregon, came forward in opposition to the application. Mr. Skyrman
gave the Commission copies of two letters concerning an agreement
he had with the OSP in their original application. He has several
concerns: (1) Location, height, and how many strands of barbed wire
on top of fence; 12) the landscaping around the fence, (3) lighting and
if he will see the direct bulbs; (41 how the cross section of the road
will be treated; and (5) how the front of his property will be impacted
if the road is widened.
Mr. Wayne Beck, 4681 No. Pacific Highway, Central Point, Oregon
came forward in opposition to the application. Mr. Beck's concerns
were: (1) the question of the actual boundary lines, (2) the impact to
the front of his house and property if the road is widened, and (3)
traffic closure.
Ms. Alberta Rundle, 4604 North Pacific Highway, Central Point,
Oregon came forward in opposition to the application. Ms. Bundle's
concern was the impact to the front of her property affecting the
salability and safety of her house and property if the road is widened.
Ms. Jeanne Beck, 4681 North Pacific Highway, Central Point,
Oregon, came forward in opposition to the application. Her concerns
were: (1) widening of road, and (2) safety due to the fog at this point
on the highway.
Mr. John Martin, Oregon Department of Transportation, came
forward. Mr. Martin stated that all he had was a very preliminary
drawing and did not have enough information to address all of the
concerns stated.
Chairman Piland called for a ten minute recess at 8:35 p.m. to give
John Martin an opportunity to go over the information available.
The Planning Commission was called back to order at 8:55 p.m.
John Martin stated that it was tentatively decided the access to the
other parcel could be combined. He stated that he would choose not
to put the access right on the property but provide an easement over
to the other property. This decision, of course, depends on what
develops on the other property. Mr. Martin stated that OSP wants a
J~
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 1996 -Page Six
continuance of the Site Plan Application for the next Planning
Commission in two weeks which would give O.D.O.T. time to do an
investigation of the highway concerns expressed tonight
Tom Hague came forward to discuss the continuance of. the Site Plan
for the next Planning Commission Meeting and the possible approval
of the Conditional Use Permit. He stated that the question of the
funding for this project will be decided on January 26 and it will be
disadvantageous if they do not have approval of the Conditional Use
Permit.
Chairman Piland closed the Public Hearing.
Wes Reynolds came forward to discuss Conditional Use Permit
approval and continuance of the Site Plan Application.
Commissioner Farber made a motion that the Planning Commission
approve Resolution No. 341, the Conditional Use Permit Application
for the OSP Property to Allow the State Policy Headquarters Office
Building in the R-2 Zone (Applicant: State of Oregon, including
Condition No. 4 of the Conditions for the Site Plan on page 87 of the
packet. Aiso included in this motion is the approval for the variance
requested for the radio tower height. Motion was seconded by Candy
Fish. ROLL CALL VOTE: Dunlap, yes; Farber, yes; Fish, yes. Motion
passed.
E. Review and determination regarding Site Pian Apolication for nr erty
located in the general vicinity of North Pacific Highway. north of
Crater High School 137 2W 36 Tax Lot 1504-N1 (Apolicant: State of
Oregon. Oregon State Police.
Commissioner Farber made a motion to continue the Review and
Determination regarding Site Plan Application for property located in
the general vicinity of North Pacific Highway, north of Crater High
School (37 2W 36 Tax Lot 1504-N) (Applicant: State of Oregon,
Oregon State Police.) until the next scheduled Planning Commission,
February 6, 1996. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. All said
"aye" and the motion carried.
F. Revie w and determ inat ion reg arding Final Plat Appl ication for Valle
Point III Subdivisio n (3 7 2W 2 2DA T ax Lot 3001 IA Rolicant: Herb
Farber . Surveyor f or W .L. Mo ore Co nstruction)
Sue Riegel stated no reports were in the packet and gave the
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Commission Minutes
January 16, 1996 -Page Seven
Commissioners copies of the Planning Department Staff Report. She
stated that Planning did not have any issue with the Final Plat. She
also stated that Public Works visited the site to make
recommendations. Planning recommends acceptance of the Final Plat
subject to the recommendations of the Public Works Staff.
Paul Worth reviewed the Final Plat. He stated that they performed a
final inspection and wrote a list of several items that will require
attention.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve Resolution No. 342,
regarding Final Plat Application for Valley Point III Subdivision (37 2W
11 DA Tax Lot 300) (Applicant: Herb Farber, Surveyor for W. L.
Moore Construction) subject to Public Works conditions for bond.
The motion was seconded by Jan Dunlap. ROLL CALL VOTE:
Dunlap, yes; Farber, abstain, Fish, yes. Motion passed.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
Commissioner Dunlap received a letter from Arthur Lamensdorf, P.O. Box
8300, Medford, Oregon, requesting a vacation of the end of First Street
from Cupp Drive to Freeman Road. She will forward the letter to the proper
department.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn. Commissioner Dunlap
seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m.
Mf
ALEX FORRESTER AND ASSOCIATES
Consultants in Land Use attd Development
303 N.E. "E" Street Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Tel (503) 479-2098 FAX (503) 476-8955
Memorandum
Date: February 1,1996
'1'0: Central Point Planning Co fission
From: Sue Riegel, Associate
Alex Forrester, Principal
Interim i'lannets, City of Central Point
lit;: 1•inal Ylat, McKibben Minor Partition
AMl' 37-2W-11AC:,'1'ax Lot 11?A3
Authori
CPMC 1.24.()'L0. The planning commission shall review and decide without public
hearing final plat approvals for subdivisions and land partitions.
The tentative plan for a minor paz4ition on the above-cited property was submitted
and approved by the Planning Commission on December 19, 1995. The submitted
Tentative Plan included the location of apre-existing house and a detached garage.
The tentative plan approval by the Planning Commission was subject to conditions of
the Public Works Department.
Findin¢s
CPMC 16.12.050. Planning staff finds that the submitted Final flat is substantially the
same as it appeared on the approved tentative plan. Afield check by Public Works
indicates that the developer has not completed the following Public Works conditions:
Condition 4: removal of the existing garage located on Parcel 2
Further, the submitted Final Plat now indicates the existence of a 10' PUI; located along
the street frontage. This PLTE was not included on the tentative plan. The pre-existing
home encroaches into ttte ld easement. According to the developer's agent, Herb
Farber, the house, constructed in 1938 and remodelled in 1960, existed prior to the
establishment of the 10' easement. City Counsel, Doug Engle, ltas recommended that
8
no vattiance is needed, but a notation on the Final Plat shall be made to prohibit any
additional building in the easement and that if the existing home is fully or partially
destroyed, no rebuilding of any part formerly encroaching into the easement will be
permitted. '
Recommendation
Planning recommends approval of the Final Plat with sighing of same subject to the
completion of conditions stated in the Public Works Report and inclusion of the
following notation on the Final Plat:
if the subject premises is fully destroyed, or if that portion encroaching into
the 10' PUE is fully or partially destroyed, no rebuilding of any structure or
part of any structure will be permitted in said easement.
MEMORANDUM PW# 95034
DATE: January 31, 1996
TO: Susan Wilson Broadus, Sue Riegel, Mark Servatius
FROM: Paul W. Worth -Public Works Technician
SUBJECT: McKibben Minor Partition, Final Plat Determination
The Final Plat of the McKibben Minor Partition has been reviewed according to CPMC
16.12.050, Staff Approval. The property is located T37S, R2W, Section 11AC, Tax Lot
11203. The following items have been verified by the Public Works Department Staff.
1(a). Except as noted in 1(b) the final plat as shown is substantially the same as it
appeared on the approved Tentative Plan adopted by Planning Commission
Resolution 336 December 26, 1995.
(b) The 10' PUE does not conform to condition #10 as approved by resolution #336.
2. The developer has not completed all the conditions of the Tentative Plan. These
conditions are as follows:
(a) Condition 2. Include the 10' easement as shown on the preliminary Final Plat for
parcels 1 and 2. Condition requires that the PUE describe the exception of the
existing house.
Public Works staff recommends that the Final Plat include a notation which shall
prohibit any additional building in the easement and further, that if the present
existing structure is destroyed or removed in part or whole, that no rebuilding will
be permitted to encroach into the PUE.
(b) Condition 4. The existing garage located~on Parcel 2 has not been removed as
required.
3. General conditions and other specific conditions shall be completed by Applicant
prior to obtaining permits or Certificate of Occupancy as appropriate.
~Q
4. The Final Plat is in compliance with all ordinances and State laws, provided
however, survey adequacy required by ORS 91.100 shall be approved by the
Jackson County Surveyor.
J
Options for Consideration:
1. Approve the Final Plat for the above subdivision, provided that the Subdivision
Improvement and Security for Performance Agreements are signed.
2. Deny the Final Plat based on findings to be developed by the City.
3. Approve the Final Plat, subject to modifications to the Final Plat being completed
by signing.
cc: File PW#95034
L im°uq "°°q c "'Np +•"S°c°LOL OUin c9n u.°, aaadoeu n o .9m
O w L~•'O~ 6NpLi C~.Ei~6yd CF.OUY LCOL CW wpLpY ~ A N O ~ U q
1[0G CI E^ 96 OQ CLq .p aYYO•pp'-,GZyO ~ O wq X qq
m o Y Y pn CW EOIpYf OTn t'Qwy~.°LY 1 ~ C 9 ~ p 1= Q
LL T LDV o no r• u[.1m Ay OI pC. //''''~~
" ~(~ Y C 2VY~n Y ~~ EVC 091nCM pYP IOL191fInC LL E m QW •'N
"' • N V NNOmf pOrQim UJFUYf°~16-n•~gCY ~YY0ti001\DY~ X n¢
Q W C W 60
U I
C ~ O «
{O° LA m LL
YO°9~ ~L
Q-YimYY °p «
C C « Y N O O 9 N
OP9•n-~L Yn I E O Y f Y L N w
YV Pnu a> DI .Di C ; Y L ~ S,~m~ L
m ~ a p E a m c° m y«s
SCY9L YG j w
Y O~.Li •,.U L L O V LD °° N YL~O Ln~
<C Emu <aO U y m 6 O P .°i N LC4C Owa
•' p 'J L « •N• N n 6 6U Eti LLO
TV gL9 Oa ~P YP J N ti Y T Y-,
p.~iY~q SU AO~ E ~ Y S LL 2 2 O Y ° YTOm nEL
Uy 4G°a £ Um E e ~ N N VE Z Y CYi 06 Y~O
L
~W~OD L7 q.Di Y O u 9Y C T EUCC °>o
Otto ~ E T 6 T p p UT ~ J TODD ~~w
= ti u Cnw
k91~Lpy TC L« p ~ ~ C~ d C d Cu C ~ ET~~ O°CO
Z ~N°u« L<9 Y P A^ U Ov.« o .~ E qY Em O paop oDOL
C
O WC>9G U9 Ym O Y ~ OOUO°PO WO ^m T>UU U°UC
NN«y9 .M « Y 7 N n°„ «C.-. ~^NL < NN@C .~Wi~YT
111 T T4 C D mn 6
Q~>YDV 09V N W O L O m ;m PF P.,L (, fiGNyL Z ID-N16 JY49
Q mpgwf P Uq° ~ O U Y O wU
p U T O NLgwPUUULY~^DO~` >
J yZj «y ~ c n ~ L u ~ z 9ao-c. •'-cun 9rv Lm Ka
Zm .VY O „u L YTm
accw-. .- a v ¢ c w °u ugTO T°u m~u
JJ J L A °u~ n°«im-.m-. oa eaY
U J~~°TL OnTO E Q O N ((1 rN9Y~^I\lIC4m LLmp H O
W <YY Cn9 TaYV T l~l L~
O YYNLL M Cq2 L 1, 1 ~ C410.Qi LL'"l0 O VN~ 1`l1E 6 O
LLUY 9 oG /LLyJ
O Y74G GY N U67A m Z LL LL I O U ~ N m> LL 4.^Y.N N n 6
, p Q m 0p x
W.N., ~N O
I m0 Q"
(L ~1 ~z £ i 1
~ 111 I obi ZF ~ _
~a 1 I I ~° ~~
~~ I I m~ Y
0
C m~ I 6E'EES 3 .OS,E0.0 5
~~ I 11 E9'66 ZL'EE !.
~1„/ I 00'OE ~ 1 n 1 1
~ S N a
m
ao ~ I ~ W ~ ti n
SU 3 = ~ 1°0 ~ ~ WN Ip Y
F Q I P 1 N a O Q
LO ~ Q 0 ^ n f a LLT 0 N
~~e v w I ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~ _
o`o~ ~ O ~ I N W I Z o
.,z>; m I ` ~ SE'EEi X .05, E0.0 N ti
amp (O < e 1 ~
° .1_..~_.. _.._.. _.._.._.._._.. _.. ~ w
Y m J
NYQ (~\ 1 VI ~ • ~r• trl
".EU LL/ O I 0 ' ti m ~NW
on OQ
iii.. C a0 W I N n. 'J r o°w J
• ~G~ ¢ a O U F q N ~
0« C I m w Q U
Y.rvY ,{ ~ N 1 Q ~ I- q
Z u°^ if Z m 1 d n W °c
i
i
c° na° H N l i 1 m 4
~ Lz^, Y N 1, z
CNV a L--------
(0 c C O_ I~ E5'EES N .ES,60.0 N
~ LQ° ~ I 1 I = I
a
v` r-I I eo I o ~ I
O °uin Q I ~°m I s i t- I
J ~ ee
1' ' JO 5N MN J jgONl ~Fti
.~ ,v °° I amP~u LL°.N. a1=i
„ +, U
L L°+~1 I ¢up~iz°w ~°° o.LL
WW 1`I/ N2NJ
(Z ~D, n`I, oa~W
"LL MLL6¢
_ I _ ~~~~~
` ~ ( 'TT~1^• 114^ ~~
.3rw •~ E IOOdO 37
~')'~ o.24Ac II 10800
J ^ C r04. fy
$ ro.a 41 t . 1 ~ ~/ J 10900 ~ I
AN,EP,IfA!~r pA LL n i I 9400
flftf !0100 ~ r( ` p'28 ac „ O.ISac
TlilE g ES'.ROW ~ o
?rez:i;.. fOMPgNY ~ 0.2aAc 2
rc Ploie e!dc., Suite ,{ E ~ (J.t ..r.>. 6`
)au ,..,air s A 42l ~ 49 ~7
/ted!ad (reel Fast •JO'>' ~ ~ 9500
THIS rA:,P IS wl~ Oreg°R 97$01 I 8z
~z ~ ~ 0.16AC
PUi:~~r,.(~ O`/I~:EDSO:EIYFOR THE )• O
71i,:: , /~1! ~ SlsilvG ~~ IHE ~~ 10200 p 11000 Q ~ 5
A: =,Vr.tF~ n.U l'>EKIY. OMPAN ~ 0.244c 10700
rHee o.28 ac 'O4'>"
11~~~,.3. ~(-191.1h GrGk vARIA~ 43 sf Iu ~ 0.28 Ac ~1I
/'~~: h Nr. I:.• rn,,+.NSU p '~ `° zs 9600
(~~ JN ASCEB LsINEp 9Y S R 10300 '0.16Ac
V ~t '%•~~'EY AN I ~ i
~~~../// O 24 Ac L I (CS I431q) ` ~, I 4
-~"` 5.~1 R [ ~ O 1 - rav.>a
.Ji. te' 44 O 48 ~ t.J,t 9700 1
`' (0400 ~ 5 sx 53 Q „O.ISgc v c
:6 ;• 0.2a Ac z ~ ~ 11100 ~ :or.>v 3
45 Q 106^7 0-28 Ac' ~ 9800 E
"D'1O • 0.'Lb 4,. .n ~ r 0.16 ac ti 0
!0500 O ~ E a
0 30 AC _ ~ V ~ ? rPr.az 2
• #s v 8 _ - m A s ~ O ,.9900
S 46 , I N U ~ 0.16Ac 1; 0
S.S.E. COR. w .aa w w a.a w w, w u aaa p.h $4 ~ ~ e.7a ~.c8 ~
k;'Y:e°as ;";... :.~ ....., ClL 56 •~ wwu ~Hwww-~~.a+~HS~ a.e~. .~...........~ .__,.....~
Aw. ,. .. ,
N. E.COR.~` i - °-- ~ _ .~._. ROAD
~~.:: Olt SC '" -~-
~.. ..
."$-.-,_. .11201 11200 ~- ,aa:e 1 +-.,.r
` 0 37AC 11202 1203 ~ :
_ _{§:. 'Gnat 018ac 72Q0 7100 ! 7
'~`•' - ~ PCRCEL 1 037ac I
°v1 X800 PARCEL2 e1RCEl] :
2 ,°, ": •+ . PARTITION PLAT ;• of
~~ 700 P•11 ].19°4 .
,CS-142741
Ollac -
(('-2210) .. r..•~-.
g rn "•
w{(a+nl de.p~ w..e u t
,,.., •74,ro :I ~ s9o
,,..• • ~ 600 ~,. 7500 3
..... I ~ ;I ,.; :
a' :r ,I
2000 2100 `' ~~ ~ i ? ''.'300 ~ 6c
s
` ~~ ~ .~
t' ~ r
l0 II .' OQ '° .•'~
~ lx y .~
f2 tL I: sae:
c .s<_ i ~ , : 500 I ~ ~ JUANITA ,
9 _ I `' 2200 f = ~ £ ?- - : 7600 •,' :..:. I .:
i r
.., Y. ~ `. ~a. .I ,r,: _ 790
v ; ~ i , ~; ~ ~I : ;7700 ' 7800 a~
:700 n.v (] .... ~ ..}} ,1
~I .<. .€ a°t ~~ EI
-~ ~ O ,. 13 ~ U I ~ I
i
W U 2300 ~ " .s... 9~ I r
ALEX FORRESTER AND ASSOCIATES
Consultants in Land Use and Develop-nent
303 N.E. "E" Street Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Tel (503) 479-1098 FAX (503) 476-8955
Memorandum
Date; February 2, 1996
To: Central Point Planning Commission
From: Sue Riegel, Associate
Alex Forrester, Principal
Interim I'lanneis, City of Cenhal Point
RE: Final Plat of Two Minor Partitions on Adjoining Yarcels
AMP 37-2W-11, Lots 49, 5U, and 52, Countryside Village Subdivision, Phase 2
Authori
CPMC 1.24.020. The planning conunission shall review and decide, without public
hearings, final plat approval for subdivisions and land partitions. The decision shall be
based upon the cititeria for Final Plat approval CPMC 16.12.0'10 through 16.12.090.
Findines
Comparison of the Tentative Plan and the Final Plat indicate that they are substantially
the same, with minor variations in lot sizes. for Parcels 3, 4, and 5.
Lot Sizes (SF)
Tent. Plan Fnnal Plat
Paicell 6064 6064
Pareel2 6064 60(14
Pazce13 7708 7544
Pazce14 7708 7339
Parcels 7627 8160
The requested revision to the dwelling location requested by Public Works has been
subnutted,and has been approved by Public Works as meeting Condition 4 of the
Public Works Staff Report.
Recommendation
For the above reasons, Plazining recommends approval of the Final Plat subject to any
Public Works conditions.
END OF MEMO
cc: Mile Thornton, Engineering
l1.
\i ~~e-f[ i pFf 3 RSHBC 6037722782
coccrre~xe
/"
~• fi
r
a
P. 02
NAY
~ ~.. w -.~
/ / ~ I
W
=-
4
I
S
m ~_
~ $~ ( •
~ I
~$
~~ _
I c:
~ ~ I 4 Sam / I
I I ,
a I ~ L.t._
~
!'
I
t
~ __.
I 1 ~ n I
{ If r/Irl' «,pp
~.. ~
I r~~ I
I
N
i
3 I ~ ~-- +1 ~
~~1 R I
`---^
n~
q - I
t/nl`«y /t,w
~ ~ b e33 xC ee
m
/i ~ I '~
I
~~ R 1
~ I i ++
~" L.._ ~
j
' 4
~ _=
..~ 1 4 t
e
.
I m. I
i .
-.._.
~ ~
= ~
.1 ~ . -..~ I
~i
I
~ a I ~~ y• C~ a ®= I
W ~
P. g
as
.
I E I ~
~ ~
L..~..L..~
i ~ I
~
.... ,
R.ao L
/
..... «ni
I .....,... «
~ I
! , wia.ur
G ~ n I
~~ I
0
15
!S
ALFJC FORRES'1`ER AND ASSOCIATES
Consultants in Land Use and Development
303 N.E. "!r" Street Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Tel (503) 479-1098 FAX (503) 476-8455
Memo um
Date: February 2, 1996
To: Central Point Planning Commission
From: Sue Riegel, Associate
Alex Forrester, Principal
h~terim Planners, City of Central Point
itE: Lone Text Amendment Relating to Vehicular Traffic
for Home Occupation Permits, CPMC 17.60.190, C.B.
Au '
CPMC 1.24.020. The planning commission shall review and make recommendations to
the City Council on amendments to the text and map of the zoning ordinance.
Background
At the request of a citizen on January 18,1996, the City Council agreed to amend the
CP1G1C to remove Paragraph C.B, of CPMC 17.60.190 which prohibits the
encouragement of customer or client visits to the dwelling with a permitted home
occupation that would result in neighborhood vehicular traffic levels above those levels
generated by the residential uses.
tndin s
CPMC 17.60.190 provides for the permitting of home occupations in residential zones
for a limited service-oriented business activity which is conducted in such a manner that
the residential character of the building and the neighborhood is preserved.
Eliminating any restrictions on traffic generated as a result of a permitted home
occupation could allow any increase in traffic in a residential neighborhood. It is
reasonable to expect that a limited amount of traffic would be generated as a result of a
permitted service-oriented business activity and that tlus limited amount of traffic
would not negatively impact the character of the building and the neighborhood.
Recommendation
Planning recommends that the Zone Text Amendment be amended to read as follows:
~6
"t3. The home occupation shall not encourage customer or client visits to the
dwelling that would result in more than a limited increase in neighborhood vehicular
traffic levels above those levels generated by the residential uses,'
END OF MEMU
1: l
RESOLUTION NO. 743
A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENT TO
AMEND CPMC 17.60.190 PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF .CENTRAL
POINT, OREGON, that the City Council intends to initiate an
amendment to CPMC 17.60.190, by deleting the requirement that
home occupations shall not encourage customer or client visits to
the dwelling.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of
its passage this ~_ day of , 1996.
Mayor Rusty cGrath
ATTEST:
~ ._Y
City epi~ se a ive
Approved by me this ~_ day of , 1996.
Mayor Rusty McGrath
ORDINANCE NO. _743 (011996)
~~
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE
SECTION 17.60.190 PERTAINING TO HOME OCCUPATIONS
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.60.190
is hereby amended to read as follows:
17.60.190 Home Occupations. A. Purpose and Scope.
The intention of the home occupation permit for residential zones
is to provide for a limited service-oriented business activity
which is conducted in such a manner that the residential
character of the building and the neighborhood is preserved.
B. Permit Transfers. No permit for a home occupation shall
be transferred or assigned, nor shall the permit authorize any
person other than named therein to commence or carry on the
occupation for which the permit was issued.
C. Permit Required. The city administrator, or his
designate, shall issue a home occupation permit if, and only if,
he finds that all of the following criteria are, and will be, met
by the individual applicant. The permit may include conditions
setting an expiration date, requiring periodic review and
renewal, requiring the applicant to sign an acknowledgement of
the conditions, or other conditions specifically dealing with the
property use involved, where such conditions are found to be
reasonably necessary to maintain the criteria herein mentioned.
1. The home occupation must be conducted solely within
the confines of an accessory structure or the main dwelling and,
if within the main dwelling, the home occupation shall not exceed
ten percent of the total floor area;
2. Carports shall not be used for the home occupation. A
portion of a garage may be used for the home occupation only if
the applicant can show that there will be no resulting loss in
the number of required off-street parking spaces;
3. No signs associated with such a use shall be
permitted;
4. The occupation shall be conducted by a member or
members of the family residing on the property as an incidental
use to the primary residential use. No additional person or
persons shall be employed;
5. In conducting the home occupation, there shall be no
mechanical noise so loud, unusual, or penetrating as to cause
discomfort or annoyance to Adjacent residents; no such noise
shall be perceptible on any adjacent property;
6. The home occupation shall not have utility services
other than those required for normal residential use;
1 - ORDINANCE NO. (011996)
1J
7. There shall be no entrance nor exit specifically
provided in the dwelling or on the premises for the conduct of
the home occupation;
==a~%
(9:)8. The electrical, plumbing, or structural elements
of the dwelling shall not be significantly altered in order to
accommodate the home occupation;
(i~)9. The yards, landscaping, and exterior of the
structure shall not be altered from their residential character
in order to make the site appear to be a commercial business.
D. Fee Required. At the time of application to the city
administrator, or his designate, for a home occupation permit,
the applicant is required to pay, in addition to an annual
business license fee on application twenty-five dollars. This
application fee is nonrefundable.
E. Revocation. The permit may be revoked by the city
administrator for violation of any conditions imposed or
authorized, or when it has been found that the occupation is
being conducted in violation of any state statute or city
ordinance in a disorderly manner, to the detriment of the public,
or when the occupation is being carried out by a person other
than that named on the permit. The city administrator, before
revoking a permit, shall give the permittee reasonable notice and
an opportunity to be heard.
F. Appeal. Any applicant or affected or concerned property
owner has the right to appeal the decision of the city
administrator or his designate, to the planning commission, in
the manner provided by Section 17.60.170 of this code.
G. Existing Uses. Persons engaged in home occupations
lawfully in existence on residentially-owned premises on the
effective date of the amendment codified in this section may
continue to thus operate but shall be required to secure a permit
hereunder, and any such activity, use, or accessory sign, device
or structure, or part thereof, which does not conform to this
section shall not be permitted to expand or enlarge and shall be
removed or terminated upon (1) change of use or ownership of the
premises; or (2) written complaint of adjacent property owners,
after due notice and hearing, if the city administrator finds
that the interference with the use and enjoyment of the
neighboring premises is such as to defeat the purpose of the
zoning ordinance.
H. Nothing in this section or any other code provision
shall be construed to require the issuance of a Home Occupation
Permit for a "residential home" or a "residential facility", as
those terms are defined in Oregon Revised Statutes 197.660.
2 - ORDINANCE NO. (011996)
/M
Section 2. Based upon a pending application which depends
on this amendment for its approval, an emergency is hereby
declared to exist, and this ordinance shall be effective upon
passage.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of
its passage this day of , 1996.
Mayor Rusty McGrath
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this day of
1996.
Mayor Rusty McGrath
3 - ORDINANCE NO. (011996)
~r
ALEX I~RRESTER AND ASSOCIATES
Consultants in Land Use and Development
303 N.E. "E" Street Grants Pass, Oregon 97526
Tel (503} 479-1098 FAX (503) 476-8955
Me~'x-m-m
Date: Febivary 2, 1996
To: Central Point Planning Commission
Froni: Sue Riegel, Associate A n
Alex Forrester, Princ7pal !~
Interim Planners, City of Central Point
RE: Zone Text Amendment Relating to:
Definition of Lot Line, Front, CPMC 17.08.290; aqd
Driveway Setback, CPMC 17.16.050.D,17.20.050,17.24.OSO.E, and 17.28.050.E
Authority
CPMC 1.24.020. The planning commission shall review and make recommendations to
the City Council on amendments to the text and map of the zoning ordinance.
proposed C anQe
CPMC 17.08.290 Lot line, front. Has been amended to read: "'Front lot line' means the
property line abutting a street. In the case of a corner lot, the property line on which
the main driveway is located."
CPMC 17.16.050.D. (3) For structures or a part of any structure served by'a driveway
located on the side yard, the minimum side yard setback €or that dart of the structu_ re
servin8 the driveway, such as a gaga eg or caiyort, shall be 20 feet.
CPMC 17.20.050. (3) For structures or a pazt of any structure served by a driveway
located on the side yard, the minimum, side yard setback for that part of the structure
serving the driveway such as a garage or caiTort, shall be 20 feet.
CPMC 17.24.050.E.(3) For structures or a paz~t of any structure served by a driveway
located on the side yard, the miniawm side yard setback for that:,part o£ the structure
serving_the driveway such as a gaza eg or carp, ort,, shall be 20 feet.
CPMC 17.28.OSO.E. (3) For structures or a part of any structure served by a driveway
located on the side yard, the minimum side yard setback for that part of the stivcture
serving the driveway such as a garage or carport, shall be 20 feet.
ca cZ
r.J
Findings
Amending the CPMC for the respective residential zoning districts would require that
only that portion of a dwelling containing a garage or carport and located on a side
yard be set back 20 feet. All othex portions of the same dwelling could be built to the
existing side yazd setback standards for side yards (5 to 10 feet}.
Each of the above cited ordinances also requires that sideyazds abutting a sheet meet
additional sight distance and clear vision area requirements set fvi~h in the Public
Works Standards and any applicable special setback rules set forth in CPMC Section
17.6D.090.
Recommendation
Planning recommends approval of the Zone Text Amendment.
~~
02/02/96 13:17 $ 503 770 1189 DOUGLPS M ENGLE P.01
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE
ZONING TEXT REGARDING SETBACK STANDARDS FOR
SIllE YARDS ABUTTING STREETS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, DO ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.08.290
is hereby amended to read as follows:
17,08.290 Lot line front. ~~Front lot Ii.ne~~ means the
property line abutting a street. In the case of a corner lot,
the property line on which the main driveway is located (ha+aittg
€aees-r)
Section 2. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.16.050
is hereby amended to read as follows:
ai.ib.us Area wiat and and requirements. The following
lot requirements shall be observed in the R-L district:
A. Lot Area. The lot area shall be a minimum of fifteen
thousand square feet.
s. Lot width. The lot width shall be a minimum of severity-
five feet.
C. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of twenty
feet.
D. Side Yard. Side yards shall be a minimum of ten feet;
provided, however, that side yards abutting a street or a
proposed or planned future street shall also be subject to the
following:
1. sight distance and clear vision area requirements
set forth in the Public Works Standards;
2. Special setback rules set forth in CPMC 17.60.090;
and
3. For structures or a part of any structure served by
a driveway located on the side yard, the minimum side yard
setback, (°-• ~`~- --~---~; --a )_ for that part of thg structure
~xvina the driveway such as a garage or carport, shall be 20
feet.
E. Rear Yard. The rear yard shall be a minimum of ten
feet.
F. Notwithstanding the yard requirements of subsections C,
D and E of this section, no dwelling shall be closer than
seventy-five feet (including rights-of-way) to land Zoned
Exclusive Farm Use by Jackson County.
1 - ORDINANCE NO. (020296) ~ ,
~ ~1
~.~
fiction 3. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.20.050
is hereby amended to read as follows:
17 20 050 Area width and~ard requirements. The lot
requirements of the R-1 zoning district are governed by the
subcategories of R-1-6, R-1-8 and R-1-10, as delineated on the
official zoning map of Central Point. The area, width and yard
requirements of these subcategories shall be in accordattce with
the following table:
Development Requirements R-1-6 R-1-8 R-1-10
Minimum lot area (interior).. 6,000 8,000 10,000
Minimum lot area (corner).... 7,000 8,000 10,000
Minimum lot width (interior). 6o ft. 60 ft. 60 ft.
Minimum lot width (corner)... 70 ft. 70 ft. 70 ft.
Minimum lot depth............ N/A N/A N/A
Minimum front yard.. .. .. 20 ft. 20 ft. 20 ft.
Minimum side yard (interior). 5 ft.* 5 ft.* 5 ft.*
Minimum side yard (street
side)......... ........... 10 ft.** 10 ft. ** 10 ft.**
Minimum rear yard............ 15 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft.
' *Side yard setback shall be increased by an additional
five feet for each additional story o r partial story
adjacent to the particular side yard boundary.
**Side yards abutting streets shall comply with the
following:
1. Sight distance and clear vision area requirements
set forth in the Public Works Standards;
2. Special setback rules set forth in CPMC 17.60.090; and
3. For structures or a part of any structure served by
a driveway located on the side yard, the minimum side
yard setback, (°° " - _`_~..` -`''") for that part of the
carport, shall be 20 feet.
Section 4. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.24.050
is hereby amended to read as follows:'
17.24.050 Area, width and yard requirements. The following
lot requirements shall be observed in the R-2 District:
A. Lot Area. The lot area shall be a minimum of six
thousand square feet with corner lots being a minimum of seven
thousand square feet.
8. Lot Width. The minimum width of a lot shall be sixty
feet, with corner lots being a minimum of seventy feet in width.
C. Lot Depth. No requirements.
D. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of twenty
feet.
2 - ORDINANCE NO. _ (020296)
~J
`~ E. Side Yard. Side yards shall be a minimum of five feet
per story. Side yards abutting a street shall be a minimum of
ten feet; provided that, side yards abutting streets shall comply
with the following:
1. Sight distance and clear vision area requirements
set forth in the Public Works Standards;
2. Special setback rules set forth in CPMC 17.60.090;
and
3. For structures or a part of any structure served. by
a driveway located on the side yard, the minimum side yard
setback, (~ +~~-- ---- _ ) for that Hart of the structure
serving the dr~~a~y^-such as a garage or carport, shall b'e 20
feet.
F. Rear Yard. The rear yard shall be a minimum of ten
feet.
G. Notwithstanding the yard requirements above and
depending on the location of the lot, special setback
requirements may apply as specified in Section 17.60.090.
section 5. Central Point Municipal Code Section 17.28.050
is hereby amended to read as follows:
~i.co.vau area width and yard requirements. The following
` lot requirements shall be observed in the R-3 District:
A. Lot Area. the lot area shall be a minimum of six
thousand square feet with corner lots being a minimum of seven
thousand square feet.
8. Lot width. The minimum width of a lot shall be sixty
feet, with corner lots being a minimum of seventy feet in width.
C. Lot Depth. No requirement.
D. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum of twenty
feet.
E. Side Yard. The side yard shall be a minimum of five
feet per story. Side yards abutting a street shall be a minimum
of ten feet; provided that, side yards abutting streets shall
comply with the following:
1. Sight distance and clear vision area requirements
set forth in the Public Works Standards;
2. Special setback rules set forth in CPMC 17.60.090;
and
3. For structures or a part of any structure served by
a driveway located on the side yard, the minimum side yard
setback, (c: ~~- --~---- '-' )-for that part of the structure
servina the driveway such as a_garage or carport, shall be 20
feet.
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of
its passage this day of 1996.
Mayor RUSty~McGrath
3 - ORDINANCE NO. _ (020296)
~~
3
M1~
02i02~96 1320
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this
S 503 770 1189 DOUGLRS 0 tHGLt
day of __ , 1996.
Mayor Rusty McGrath
~!
4 - ORDINANCE NO. (U"L 0295)
Y.tlV