Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - July 2, 1996i CITY'OF.CENTRAL"POIlV'i' ,~ PLANNING COMMrSSION AGENDA..- July 2 1996 - 7.00 p.m, -' CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES JUNE 18, 1996 I. THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. IL ROLL CALL -Those present were: Chuck Piland, Angela Curtis, Candy Fish, Karolyne Johnson, Valerie Rapp, Bob Gilkey III. CORRESPONDENCE There was not correspondence. IV. Commissioner Fish moved to approve the June 4, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes as written. Commissioner. Gilkey seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Curtis, yes; Fish, yes; Johnson, abstain; Rapp, abstain, Gilkey, yes. Motion passed. V. BUSINESS A. Public Hearjpg Review and recommendation rggarding)'entative Plan A~olication fior Snowy Mountain View Subdivision (T37S R2W TL 17001 IRedha Corporation) - 'Chairman Riland opened the public hearing. There were no conflicts of interest of ex-parte communication. Jim Bennett reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. He stated that the application is in compliance with the City requirements. Paul Worth reviewed the Public Works Staff Report. Paul referred to 'Page 1U of the Staff Report. Columbine was originally constructed as - part of'Castle Court Condominiums. In 1994, the street did not meet City'standards. The applicant was instructed to bring it up to City standards before it could be dedicated to the City. This has not yet been done. This also pertains to Village Drive. Condition 2D targets this problem. On Page 25 of the Staff Report in Condition2A the reference to the widening of Hopkins Road is to be deleted. Planning and Public Works agreed there were not enough landowners along . this road to sign a Deferred Improvement Agreement. Condition 2B is also to be deleted. On Page 16, Condition 6(ap second sentence, "all" should'be changed to "shall" and in Condition 8, .lot 12 should read lot 23. CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 18, 1996 Page Two Mark Servatius, Building and Safety Department, reviewed the Public Safety Staff Report. Larry Friar, 304 So. Holly Street, Medford, Oregon, agent for the applicant, and the applicant, Ben Zare', 339 W. Valley View Road, Ashland, Oregon, came forward on behalf of the application. Larry Friar had a question on Condition 2D of the Public Works Staff Report concerning what needed to be done to bring the streets up to City standards. Paul Worth stated that Thornton Engineering will need to see the construction drawings regarding any improvements to be made. Shannon Hulsey, 564 Village Drive, Central Point, came forward with a question concerning the nature of the development. She and several neighbors were concerned that these units, as duplexes, would not be owner-occupied but would be used as rentals. She also asked if-0:C. & R's vvould be required in .these units. Mr. Zare' assured Mrs. Hulsey and neighbors that these units are not duplexes, but padlots, would be owner-occupied and sold individually, and that C.C. & R's would be required. Jim Bennett, Planning Director; described a padlot unit for the audience. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. A. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve Resolution 353 regarding Tentative Plan Application for Snowy Mountain View Subdivision (37SR2W, TL 1700) (Applicants: Redha Corporation) subject to all the Conditions in the Staff Reports and amendments to those conditions as-recommended. Commissioner Rapp seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Curtis, yes; .Fish, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes; Gilkey, yes. Motioh passed. Piihli c Hear ing -Review and recommendation regarding I entative Tian ~,ol ication on Green-Par k Subdivision Phase 5 (372W12C TL 34601 (Aoo licant• Pac Trend Inc 1 2 .~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 18,1996 Page Three Chairman. Piland opened the public hearing... There were no conflicts of interest or ex-paste communications. Jim Bennett, Planning Director, reviewed the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicant had to resubmit this application. Paul Worth review the Public Works Staff Report. Condition 11 of Conditions on Page 34 will be deleted. Instead, Public Works is suggesting the Planning Commission require the applicant to develop a property agreement or covenant to give property owners legal access to maintain the EIk Creek channel and also. allow the Public Works Department access to the channel for inspection when necessary._ Mark Servatius, Building .and Safety Department, reviewed the Staff Report for his department. Douglas .McMahan, Hoffbuhr & Associates, Ine., agent for he applicant came forward on behalf of the applicant. .Commissioner Gilkey questioned why, the plans. showed two. 20 foot water line easements. Mr. McMahan stated thatthe.first two easements are easements of record, but the water and gas. lines :are not there. The developer is giving an easement where the gas and water lines actually are located. Paul Worth stated that Public Works would like to review the plans again. Mr. McMahan stated that they will. work out the Wording on allowing the City to inspect the creek and the owners to maintain the creek. Chairman Piland closed the public hearing. Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve Resolution 354 regarding Tentative Plan Application on Green Park Subdivision, Phase 5 (372W12C TL 3460) (Applicant: PacTrend, Inc.) subject to all the CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 18, 1996 Page Four conditions in the' Staff Reports and the amendments to those conditions as recommended. Commissioner Rapp seconded the motion. ROLL CALL VOTE: Curtis, yes; Fish, yes; Johnson, yes; Rapp, yes;' Gilkey, yes. Motion passed. VII MISCELLANEOUS Jim Bennett, ,Planning Director, gave the Commission an overview of some current and future projects. Jim stated that the Pilot Project developers are requesting a building permit. There'is a question do giving them a building permit since the Public Works Department has not received all the plans for the infrastructure. The conditions state that "no construction shall begin on this project until the Publio Works Department and other pertinent departments of the City have reviewed and approved the project plans and specifications..." After much discussion the Commission told Jim Bennett to get further information from 'the PiloYdeveloper/engineers`for the next meeting on July 2 to assist in making a decision: Mark Servatius explained the changes that will be made on July 1 when he and the firemen move to Fire District 3. -Jim Bennett informed the Commission that Ken Gerschler has been hired as 'the Planning Technician and will begin on July 1, 1996. Paul Worth stated that the Public Works Department has just hired a new technician, Bob Pierce, who began on June 17, 1996. VIII ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion'to adjourn. Commissioner Gilkey seconded the motion. All said "aye" and the meeting adjourned at 8:43 p.m. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT , HEARING DATE: July 2, 1996 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Site Plan and Conditional Use Pernut Applications for Expansion. of LTM Inc. um The applicant, LTM Inc., has applied for a Site Plan Review and a Conditional Use Permit to allow the installation of two above-ground 15,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks in association with their aggregate resource business. The project site is located west of Hamrick Road adjacent to the Bear Creek Greenway within the BCG, Bear Creek Greenway zoning district. ,; A t rit CPMC 1.24.020 invests the Planning Commission with the authority to render a decision on any Site Plan Review or Conditional Use Permit application. A public hearing is required for consideration of any Conditional Use Permit application. Notice of the public hearing was effected in accordance with CPMC 1..24.060. Discussion The applicant, LTM Inc., operates an aggregate resource business on Hamrick Road. This operation includes a concrete pipe manufacturing plant, a concrete batch plant, an asphalt plant and a number of accessory structures. The majority of the business operations are located outside of the Central Point city limits in .Jackson County.. The concrete, pipe manufacturing plant and the proposed location for the fuel storage tanks are located within .the city limits. The pipe plant is within an M-1, Industrial zoning district. The proposed fuel tanks would be located within the BCG, Bear Creek Greenway zoning district... CPMC 17.72.020 requires a site plan application for all construction requiring the issuance of a building permit. The installation of the proposed diesel fuel storage tanks requires the issuance of a building permit. CPMC 17.54.030 requires a conditional use permit for mining or aggregate removal within the BCG, Bear Creek Greenway zoning district. The LTM operation is a use associated with mining and aggregate removal. 5 The proposed diesel fuel tanks wil[ replace existing tanks that are located within the Jackson County portion of the LTM operation. The relocation of these tanks is part of an effort being made by LTM to comply with the requirements of the Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) regarding site operations. Installation of the tanks will be subject to applicable building code and fire code requirements. indin s CPMC 17.72.040 sets out the standards that are to be used as the basis for any decision on a Site Plan application. CPMC 17.76.040 sets out the findings that must be made by the Planning Commission in granting a Conditional Use Permit. The applicant has submitted supporting documentation in support of the required standards and findings. Staff has reviewed this documentation and concludes that it is adequate subject to the recommended conditions of approval. However, staff does not agree with the applicant's conclusion that the project does not require a building permit and site plan review. The installation of the proposed fuel tanks is cleazly "construction" as defined in the Uniform Building Code and requires both a building permit and site-plan review. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the Site Plan application for LTM, Inc. and adopt Resolution No. ~ approving the Conditional Use Permit for LTM, Inc., based on the findings of fact and staff conclusions contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan and Conditional Use Permit applications; or 3. Continue the review of the Site Plan application and the public hearing for the Conditional Use Permit application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits A. Recommended Conditions of Approval B. Site Plan for LTM, Ina C Applicant's justification for Required Standards and Findings D. Notice of Public Hearing E. Public Safety Staff Report dated June 24, 1996 s EXHIBIT A RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. The fuel tanks shall be installed in accordance with the approved site plan: 2. The fuel tanks shall be installed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and State of Oregon Uniform Fire Code. 3. The installation of the fuel tanks will require the issuance of a building permit by the City of Central Point... 4. The applicant shall provide the City with copies of any other permit approvals required by local, state or federal agencies for he installation of the fixeL tanks. 5. The applicant shall provide the City with plans showing the location, size and composition of roads that will be used to provide fire department access to the fuel tanks and water lines and hydrants that will provide- the required fire flow for fire department apparatus. Any deficiencies in meeting fire department requirements shall be remedied by the applicant prior to the dispensing of any fuels. 6.'This Conditional Use Permit is valid for a period of twelve months. The proposed use must commence within this period or a new Conditional Use Permit must be applied for. } 7 ~+~' ~ vSE P~~~z.cn cr ~PPL~c(a~~a~.J F-5 ~~~~ ~~~~ 8 1_,;~ ~~a ?L.A ~U F~ 1 ~ _A \ ~~ ®1, ~, wa aa,~"' `, Q pv~ Q ~~ tiy, x 9 LT6f iNC. -~ n "'"~ ~ """ S ~-r ~ Q~.t~u Aee~-•cA-r~o ~r t1IIY1Q.pV IM{S fL MY MMIM mw( pl R ~lq WIe Iwp/ IMI~O ttWI.11I Q~r~. RoC PIII PYDq ~. INC pII/ M~YI D 1111~f ~1 Q~~Mt IW oI IsaA ~ f. 1m .! 5G!L'U "' i ~ /. G~N'~~ i.J/C-/~F.! T -:.vC ~" X ~' L . ~-~c ~ /L'~'./.'lfArlf I (rI, •=~{--ill a ~ ~ .. o i b year ~~8~ ~¢~k.~~F,B ,F/Z.t [JN~ CYYR~ ~ ~/ ,~Y~ ~ ... t irT L~~~ i ~~1 E ~ ,. .. i i + I ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ I . ._ _ . . ~r -- -- -=------~~= ~,... Y .~4~~j~- ~~J~ ! ,\ '...~\ ~-~. ~ _ _. . -' i- ~`" f ; 1 ,..... _ 11 :... ... - - .- _ ---- . . _. <, APPLICATION EXHIBIT ~ FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, STATE OF OREGON Applicant: Subject Property: LTM, Inc. P.O. Box 1145 Medford, Oregon 97501 Tax Lot 2000, Section 2D, Township 37 South, Range 2 West of the Willamette Meridian Review Agency: Central Point Planning Commission 155 South 2nd. Central Point, Oregon 97502 Prepared By: Curt Weaver Southern Oregon Planning Services 2480 Nieto Way Medford, Oregon 97504 J.~ ~ SECTION I: NATURE OF TAE'APPLICATION: The is an application for site plan approval, to install two 15,000 gallon, above ground diesel fuel tanks at the LTM, Inc. Hamrick Road Plant. The proposed use will utilize 7,500 square feet'of 'area (0.17 acre) within an active industrial aggregate products business that is 39 acres in size. The site as a whole, is in three separate zoning designations. The 27 acres located in Jackson County is zoned. Aggregate Resource (AR) The north most area consisting of Tax Lot 350 0& 3600 is in the City of Central Point and is zoned M-1, and is 6.50 acres in size. The area where fuel tanks will be placed is on Tax. Lot 2000 and is zoned Bear Creek Greenway (BCG), and is 5.23 acres in size. The fuel tank installation will occur 125 feet north of the ,City Limits line. An application for a Conditional Use Permit was submitted concurrently with this application and should be used as part of this review and decision. SECTION II. 4TTF PLAN FACTS: ' LTM has a Site Plan for the entire property at 1" = 60' scale. All improvements and other pertinent features for the area in the City and County is indicated on that Plan. The Site Plan has been the basis for obtaining County permits as needed. The LTM grounds have existing landscaping, controlled circulation, approved access points to Hamrick Road and drainage systems installed. The nature of this improvement (fuel tanks) will not change any activity now occurring on the property nor will it increase off-premise traffic. The new fuel tank site'is screened from public view by other LTM improvements and uses on the property. The fuel tank site has an adequate aggregate base. The tanks are double-wall construction approved by DEQ for containment purposes, in case of spill or leakage. The site is level and is out of the 100 year floodplain for Bear Creek. The tanks are skid mounted and no footings are required. We do not believe a building permit is required by the City for this type of installation. The tank measurements are Height: 11'; Width: 10' 6" Length: 35'. SECTION III. REVIEW ANALYSIS: The applicant has submitted this Site Plan and filing fee as requested by the City. We submit that the application may not be required because: t ~~ 1.) A building permit is not required and; '2'.) No change of use will occur on the. property as a whole. 3:) There is'and will be no structural improvements,. or change in off or-on site traffic circulation. The new fuel tanks are adjacent to a yard area already used by heavy equipment and truck traffic. We are concerned over the review process. Typical issues with a Site Plan are: landscaping,.-.traffic circulation, ,parking areas, pedestrian movement, screening, and. property line setbacks. These are not issues in this case. The issues are fire safety and spill bontainment. These are addressed by Fire District, Fire Marshall and DEQ rules. CONCLUSION: The site`plah is submitte~ schedule for relocation of the hope to avoid delay by arguing application. However, we will conditions for approval unless evidence and fact. 3 so that LTM can meet it's fuel tanks per DEQ agreement. We over the necessity of this not. accept .attachment of the City can document a basis in Submitted this 11th. day of June, 19,96; Curtis D. Weaver, Agent Z ~ ~. i APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE.-PERMIT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, STATE OF OREGON Applicant: LTM,'Inc. P.O. Box 1145 Medford, Oregon 97501 Subject Property: Tax Lot 2000 on Assessor Map 372W2D " Review Agency: Central Point Planning Commission 155 South 2nd. Central Point, Oregon 97502. Prepared By: Curt Weaver, Southern Oregon Planning Services 2480 Nieto Way Medford, Oregon 97504 SECTION I: NATURE OF THE APPLICATION: This is an application for a Conditional Use Permit to place two 15,000 gallon above ground diesel fuel tanks at the Hamrick Road operations site of LTM, Inc. The subject property owned by LTM is 39 acres in size. The northerly portion tax lots consisting of Tax Lot 2000, 3500 and 3600 are located within the city limits of Central Point. The southerly and easterly portion is in Jackson County jurisdiction. (Tax Lots 300 and 400.) The above ground tanks will be located on Tax Lot 2000 at a point that is 125 feet north of the of the City Boundary line... The City property is zoned Bear Creek Greenway (BCG). The County property is zoned Aggregate Resource (AR). The existing use on the property as a whole is a permitted use under the Land Development Ordinance (LDO) for Jackson County and a Conditional Use under the City Zoning Code. SECTION II. MATERIAL FACTS: • The LTM operations site consists of five (5) tax lot parcels. From a operations standpoint, the site is considered one parcel in common use. There is no distinct feature that separate the tax lot parcels and in fact, they are not physically marked on the grounds. • The site has been in aggregate resource and heavy industrial use for over 40 years. It is currently the chief operations office, maintenance yard, and employee center for LTM. Uses at the site consist of corporate offices, concrete fabrication plant, concrete batch plant, aggregate stockpiles, equipment and truck parking, maintenance .shops and fuel storage. • Access to the site and the area subject to this permit is from two controlled ingress-egress points to Hamrick Road. • Land use adjacent to the entire operations site consists of a Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) maintenance yard to the north, an orchard to the east and Bear Creek Greenway and LTM open space to the west. • Land use within a 300 foot radius of the specific site for this permit consists of other LTM uses. • A portion of the property is in the 100 year floodplain of Bear Creek, but not the area subject to the application (see 1~ attached map). The 100 year base flood elevation is 1,259 feet. The project site is 1,260 feet. SECTION III. SPECTFICS PERTAINING TO THE PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE• The two 15,000 gallon diesel fuel tanks will be installed immediately following final approval of this application. The construction activity will take about 10 days to complete and will utilize approximately 7,500 square feet of land area. The area is currently used for truck parking and storage, The 'new fuel tanks are double wall construction and skid mounted. No footings are required other the an adequate aggregate base. The double wall construction is designed for self-containment spill purposes. Following construction, and DEQ and City Code inspection, the tanks will be filled and their operation wll,be as follows: • Three or four highway licensed fuel trucks will fill and deliver fuel to various LTM construction sites and/or aggregate operations throughout the County. In addition, the same trucks will fuel on-site equipment. An estimated 700. to 800 gallons is the daily use. • Once a week (on the average) a tanker truck will deliver and refuel the tanks as needed. • All circulation is internal or through the access point on Hamrick Road. • The fuel tanks are screened from view from adjacent parcels by existing structures and equipment storage already on-site. • The tanks are 11 feet high, 10' 6" wide and 35 feet in length. • LTM is not proposing specific landscaping or site berms around the. new fuel tanks. Their location is well within an area in heavy daily industrial use. The LTM property has landscaping on the perimeter or is adequately screened by riparian vegetation along Bear Creek. SECTION IVc FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: A.) Criteria: The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use r - - - - - .Finding: The site is a level area with an'aggregate base. Approximately 7,500 square feet of aYea is committed to this-use and it is well within the internal operations site for LTM. The ~~ 7,500 square foot area includes the area used to fill the fuel trucks. B.) Criteria: That the-.site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use: Finding: The proposed use generates one fuel distributor. tanker truck trip per week and 3 to 4 daily off-premise LTM fuel trucks. This is the maximum traffic and will vary depending on yearly construction activity. However, this is not an increase in traffic. The same use occurs now on the.property. There is no net increase in traffic generated going to or from the LTM property. "The slight change in traffic flow is internal (on- premise). -C.)' Criteria: That the proposed. use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof: Finding: Abutting properties (in other ownership's) consist of the ODOT maintenance yard to the north, orchard use o .the east, and Open Space to the south: and west. The proposed use is located well within. the LTM operation site as a whole, as shown on the Site Plan Map at 1"=60' scale. Specifically, distances from the fuel tank site. to abutting. properties are: • ODOT - 507' (north). • Bear Creek and Greenway Easement Area - 600' to 670'. (west). • Bear Creek and Greenway Easement - 1,320' to 1,500' (south). • Hamrick Road and Orchard Area - 540' to 600' (east). The elevation of the specific site which is a level area is 1,260 feet. The area to the north and east rises in elevation to 1,267 feet at the ODOT yard and 1.,269 at Hamrick Road. On site the fuel tank area adjoins two large maintenance shops to the south (200'), corporate offices to .the east. (320'), truck parking to the west (100' to 300 plus feet). A finding can be made that the fuel tanks are adequately screened by on-site industrial uses from abutting properties and that no adverse change. in land .use will occur as a result of approval of this use .permit. 18 D.) Criteria: The public safety, health and general welfare standard - - - - -. Finding: The fire safety and spill issues are part of .other inspections and permits from other government processes. The general public is restricted from access in the area near the fuel tanks. Public traffic is directed to the office area by signs and traffic barriers at the Hamrick Road entrance. E.) Criteria: Required Conditions (City Code, Section`.. 17.76.040 (e) Finding: The applicant submits the following findings with respect to conditions attached to approval of this permit: 1.) The lot size and yard area is adequate to accommodate the proposed use without modification or further conditions. 2.) No street improvements are necessary. No vehicular access points need regulation. 3.) Additional landscaping requirements are not necessary. 4.) No additional signs as regulated by the City Zoning code are being proposed. 5.) The proposed use produces no adverse noise, odor or vibrations that need further regulation at this location by the City. 6.) No part of the proposed use requires time or day of week regulation as applicable to the location. (The site as a whole has a long standing history of industrial use and is not located in a residential area.) The evidence submitted with this application clearly established that only two conditions are appropriate. These are: 1.) The applicant remains in compliance with all other necessary rules, regulations and permits if required by the City, County or State of Oregon as they pertain to above ground fuel tanks. Copies of other approved permits shall be submitted to the City. 2.) The fuel tanks shall be located as shown on the Site Plan as submitted with the application. 19 CONCLUSIO The'Planning Commission can find that the application complies with all standards and 'criteria for approval. Submitted this 11th'. day of June, 1996; Curt Weaver, Southern Oregon Planning Services 'Agent for LTM, Inc. ~~ 1(J'zty of (1'ez~t~a~ ,[Jnznt ~;XHIBIT ._~.__ PI_A.NNXIVG DEPAyRTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date of Notice: June 12, 1996 Hearing Date: Tuesday, July 2, 1996 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: - Cerit;al Point City Council Chambers 155 South Second Street Central Point, OR 95702 NATURE OF HEARINGS lames Bennet Planning Duecto Sandy Lomme Administxativ~ Planning Secretar Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to 7eview a proposed Conditional Use Permit Application and Site Plan Application for the following: 1. LTM, Inc., has requested a Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan for property located in the general vicinity south of Hamrick Road south of East Pine Street, to conditionally allow the installation of two 15,000 gallon fuel tanks associated with mining or aggregate removal within the Bear Creek Greenway District (BCG Zone). This property is described in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as 37 2W 02D Tax Lot 2000. 2. LTM has also applied for Site Plan to install two 15,000 gallon fuel tanks for this site; CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for conditional use permits are set forth in Chapter 17.76 of the Central Poin£ Municipal Code, relating to access, size and shape of site, significant adverse impact upon abutting properties, local, state and federal regulations and general health, safety and welfare. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 1. Any person interested in commenting on the proposed amendment to the conditional use permit may submit written comments up until the close of the hearing scheduled for Tuesday, July 2, 1996. Written comments may be also sent in advance of the hearing to .Central Point City Hall, 155 South 2nd, Central Point, Oregon, 97502, Attention: Planning Department. 2. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decision described above will need to be related to the specific proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. , 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR .-97502 • (541) 664-3321 • Fax (541) 664-osa4 ~~ 3. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review and City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies are available at 15 cents per page. 4. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-3321. SUNIMARY OF PROCEDURE At the public hearing, the Planning-Commission will review the proposal and any technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear any arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review hearing, the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Conditional Use Permit Application for the LTM Project. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. The Council may, on its own motion, no later than the regularly scheduled Council meeting following the decision date, call for a review of the Planning Commission: decision. Any party.aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission may request a review of such action by the City Council by filing a written appeal to the city no more than seven days after the date the city mails the notice of the decision. EXHIBIT _.~.-- CTTY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY STAFF REPORT Date: 6/24/96 Project:.LTM aboveground fuel tanks Project Address: Owner: LTM Ina Agent /Applicant: Southern Oregon Planning (Curt Weaver) Architect: N/A Engineer: N/A Surveyor :Not Specified This. is a Site Plan Review covering the Fire Protection aspects o£ a proposed aboveground fueling station. The site consists of two (2) 15,000 gallon aboveground diesel storage tanks located on an approximately 7500 Sq. Ft. level site. The requirements outlined herein are based on the State of Oregon 1996 Edition of the Oregon Uniform Fire Code which is based on the 1994 Uniform Fire Code. This review assesses the Fire Protection needs related to Water Supply, Fire Deparhnent Access, Required Fire Flow, General precautions against fire during construction, and Timing of Installation of Fire Protection Features. This review does not cover the structural nor fire & life safety requirements relating to the proposed structure(s): Those requirements will be addressed in detail at the time of submittal of detailed plans.. THE FOLLOWING ARE MY FINDINGS: 1. The applicant shall provide the Fire Deparhnent with proof of compliance of Part III Article 9 related to fire deparhnent access. & water supply evidenced by plans showing designated roadways. 2. In accordance with the Oregon Uniform Fire Code; the location, number, and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be provided on the public street or on-site of the premises or both and are to be protected as required and approved by the Fire Chief. Fire hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roads meeting the requirements of Division III Article 9 of the Fire Code. (Continued) ~3 2 3. The water supply for fire protection on-site shall be calculated and designed by applicants engineer and be submitted to the City for their review to substantiate that the proposed design will meet fire flow demands. City of Central Point Standard Specifications for water lines; specifies a minimum of an 8" water main when serving fire hydrants. Hydrant locations shall be such that the maximum spacing between hydrants shall not exceed 300'. 4. Approval of the two (2) 15,000 gallon aboveground diesel storage tanks is based on Appendix II-F. More specifically Section 5 Exception. Also see Table 7902.2-F. 5. Installation of the aboveground fueling tanks shall be in accordance with Article 52. More specifically sections 5202.3.1 & 5202.4.1 6. Applicant shall request a meeting with the Fire Marshal to finalize specific placement of the hydrant(s), access & installation of storage tanks. 7. Timing of the installation of the water system for required fire flow and Fire Department access shall be completed, tested, and approved by the fire department prior to dispensing of any fuels. . Approval of.the submitted Application & or Site Plan is not an approval of omissions or oversights by this office; or of uon-compliance with any applicable regulations of this jurisdiction except as noted:. Note* COPIES OF THE CODE SECTIONS PREFACED IN THIS REPORT WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE APPLICANT(S) OF THIS PROJECT FOR THEIR REFERENCE. ~~~ ~c - Reviewed By: Mark A. Servatius Fire Chief/Building Official ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING ' DATE: ' July 2, 1996 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Tentative Plan for Bluebird Heights Subdivision umma The applicant, C:' David Freel, is proposing a tentative plan for the Bluebird Heights Subdivision consisting of seventeen lots. The project site is zoned R-3, Residential Multiple- Family and is located on N. Tenth Street adjacent to the Willow Glen Apartments.. The subdivision includes two single-family lots which each have an existing single-family dwelling, nine duplex lots, five fourplex lots, and one multiplex lot which could accommodate as many as twenty units. The total number of dwelling units proposed for the subdivision is sixty. The average density for the subdivision is 12.37 units/acre. The maximum density permitted in the R-3 district is 25 units/acre. A horit CPMC 1.24.020 invests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a subdivision tentative plan. Notice of the public hearing was effected in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Discussion The Planning, Public Safety and Public Works Departments have reviewed the tentative plan for the Bluebird Heights Subdivision and have concluded that it would comply with all city subdivision requirements, subject to the recommended conditions for approval, except for the lot area of Lot 2. Lot 2 is a flag lot and, therefore, requires a minimum lot area of 12,000 sq. ft. excluding the access. The lot area for Lot 2 as shown on the tentative plan is 12,604 sq. ft. and includes the access. Lot 2 will have to be reconfigured along with one of the adjacent subdivision lots to achieve the required lot area. Access to the subdivision will be from Cheery St. and a new cul-de-sac street, Sunrise Way. Secondary access will be provided through a reciprocal easement with the Willow Glen Apartments from the private road that serves the apartment complex. Fr Recommendation: Staffrecommendsthat the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. _ and approve the Tentative Plan for the Bluebird Heights Subdivision, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval contained in the staff reports; or 2. Deny the proposed Tentative Plan for the Bluebird Heights Subdivision; or 3. Continue the public hearing for the Tentative Plan application at the discretion of the Commission Staff further recommends that any approval of the Tentative Plan for the Bluebird Heights Subdivision should include the following condition: 1: Lot`2, and such other lot(s) as may be necessary, shall be reconfigured to achieve the minimum lot areas for saidiots asestablished by city ordinance., Exhi its A. -Tentative Plan -Bluebird Heights Subdivision B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Public Safety Staff Report -June 14 , 1996 D. Public Works Staff Report -June 27, 1996 w (j ~xxtsi~r _.. ~.--~-~~ ~~ ~~ ~. _~ ~~~~ ~ 3 m ~ n ~ ~ n~~~ g~ ~~. ~/. ~ tl77 ~ ~3 9 mH ~o ~ ~ ~~ Jt- ~~, a ~ o- ~~ 9g ~ '' '^ ~~~. ~~ ~ ~ ~q~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ - G- ~s~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ M ~ u ~ ~~ ~ ~$~! ~ ~ ~~ as. \ ` ~'~ e§iTjE A./ .~'/~ i l ~ ,: i j au i ~ ~ / ~ ~7 // y..._.~.._...~/ I~ ~ i:s~ ~~ ,; / s~ \ ^_ a ~~~.~ f ~ i ~ ~i ~ A ~,~ ~' ~' ,,," ~~ Y ~ ~r~~~ QI ~ ` O f \ {11 xx ~ `\ ~. ~ Zi _ ~. . ., ~,~ -- ~ .~~~ ~ ~, ~~ ~ `~ ~`` `~ ~ ~`~ \' ~ ^ `~, ~, ~. ~~~ ~$~ ~~ ~ ~. ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~' ~ F` ~ '. ~~ d~ ~e ~+ .~ ~~~ r~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ _ " ~~~ : ~~ tQ~ji a~ ~iY f.' ~ ~~ ~,_ -~ ;~, t - ~ ~ '~'i i ~ R g$, ~f? / M ~~ , ~ M ~ ~ ~ps ~apl ~ ~ ~ u yk( ~ G ~ ~ G ~-J R ~,'zty o~ t,en~~ac roznz .1'LANNXNG DEP, James Ziennet Planting Din:cto NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date of Notice:;June 12, 1996. Hearing Date: Time: Place:' NATURE OF HEARING Tuesday, July 2, 1996 7:00 p.m.(Approximate) Central Point City Council Chamber 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Sandy X.omme Adminisirativ Planning Sccretaz Beginning at the above place.and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review a Tentative Plan Application for a land partition located in the Residential Multiple Family Zone (R-3) on property located east of Tenth Street and south of Cherry Street. The site is located on Tax Lots 1101 and 1500 of Jackson County Tax Assessor Map Page 37 2W 2BC. The agent of record is Douglas McMahan of Hoflbuhr & Associates: _ CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for approval of tentative plans aze set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating. to tentative plans, land partitions, street, water system, storm drainage and sanitarysewer and CPMC Chapter 17 relating to lot dimensions. The Tentative Plan is also reviewed for compliance with the City's. Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. 'Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the hearing scheduled'for Tuesday, July 2, 1996. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the hearing to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to .the expiration of the.comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. NOPIJ"~IAl~hhnd Street • Central Point, OR 9750L+ (S41) 664-SJZr • ra~c t~4rl oos-OJ6Y ~~ 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available foc public review at City Hall, I55 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) 664-3324 (extension 231). SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the public hearing, the Planning Commission will review the application, and technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and 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 hearing, the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan for the proposed land partition. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. The Council may, on its own motion, no latei than'the regularly scheduled Council meeting following the decision date, call for a review of the Planning Commission decision. Any party aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission may request a review of such action by the City Council by filing a written appeal to the city no more than seven days after the date the city mails the notice of the decision. V. ~~'~! ~~ i.~ ~~ 1 N ~~ EXHIBIT C' interoffice M'E FI O R A N D U M to: Jim Bennett Planning Director from: Mark A. Servatius Fire Chief/Building Official subject: Tentative Plan Bluebird Heights Subdivision (C. David Freel & Assoc. ApplicantxDouglas C.McMahan7Hofibuhr & Assoc. Agent) (Project no. 96027TP) date: June 14, .1996 I have reviewed the Tentative Plan, for Bluebird Heights Subdivision, further described as follows: AMP 37-2W-2BC, Tax Lots 1101& 1500 The~'ollowing are my findings: 1.: All. fire protection requirements; including ,hydrant locations & water supply have not been identified forthis'development. Developer will. supply the Fire Department with plans indicating water system design and fire hydrant spacing not to exceed 300'. 12equired Fire flows will be calculated for each individual lot based on the largest structure per lot . Fire Chief will approve final location(s) & required number of all hydrants. In addition water system will be tested by the developer and approved by the City of Central Point. 2. Fire Department access is tentatively approved for all duplex and four-plex lots as submitted. The large lot designed to facilitate the 201iving unit multi-plex will require on-site fire hydrants and secondary access. Developer will provide the City of Centrai Point with as approved design for the aforementioned secondary access in accordance with City Specifications. 3. No Building Permits will be issued for this development until all City of Central Point conditions including installation of fire hydrants have been met and final plat approval is given. CONCLUSIONS: The Tentative Plat meets all Fire Department requirements & is tentatively approved pending ail City of Central Point conditions of approval outlined herein are complied with C:IOFF[CEIWPWINIWPDOCS~BLU8RDIP. WPD `0 Approval of submitted Tentative Plan Application(s) is not an approval of omissions or oversights by this office;'or of non-compliance with any applicable regulations of this jurisdiction except as noted. ~~ R eve ~ wed By: M r A,. Servatius Fire Chief/Building Official ~: cc: Public Works Department Public Safety Project File APPlicant C:10IF[CGIWPWIN~W1'DOCSIBLUDRDTY.WPD 1 ~~:3I&IT ~- CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT -TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW BLUEBIItD HEIGHTS Date: 6/27/96 Applicant: Freel & Associates Project: Multi-Family Residential Subdivision Location: North Tenth Street, Cherry Street Legal: 37S 2W Section 2BC, Tax Lots 1101, and 1500 Zoning: R-3 Lots: 17 Proposed Units: 60 Plans: Bluebird Heights Tentative Plat, Revised 4/29/96, Hoflbuhr & Associates Report By: Michael Thornton, Thornton Engineering General 1. The applicant shall submit to the City's Public Works Department plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modification within the City's rights-of--ways or easements. All construction shall conform to the City's Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction and such other special specifications herein. No construction shall commence until the Public Works Department has reviewed, approved, and issued a permit for the proposed improvements. The developer shall pay for all costs associated with the design and installation of the improvements specified on these plans. 2. Prior to final approval of the project, the developers engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with a digital drawing of the Final Plat property boundaries in an AutoCadd compatible format. Streets/Traffic: 1. The public works improvements for the development shall include the widening of the east side of North Tenth Street to a 22 foot half section from centerline to the east face of curb. The widening shall extend from the existing 22 foot ha f street section approximately 35 feet north of the project to the southerly project boundary. From the southerly project boundary the improvements shall transition to the existing curb line 100 feet south of the project boundary (25:1 transition). 2. The wnstruction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plan and a Traffic Control Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City of Central Point Public Works Department. The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas designed to meet the City's Public Works Standards. 3. The City's Engmeer shall, at the cost of the developer, evaluate the strength of the native soils and deternune the street section designs in accordance with the Public Works Department Design Standards 4. See recommendations provided in the June 17, 1996, memorandum by John Replinger, DEA, City's Traffic Engineer. F.a Public Work's Staff Report 6/27/1996 Storm Drainage: 1. The developer shall construct an adequately sized storm drainage system to provide for nanoffonto the subdivision property and from each lot. Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this Tentative Plan, the developer's engineer shall provide a complete set of drainage calculations for sizing the storm drainage system. The engineer shall use the rainfall/mtensity curve obtained from the Public Works Department for hydrology calculations. Z. Curb and gutter sections shall not exceed 350 feet before entering a catch basin or cub inlet. Sanitary Sewer: 1. All sewerage system design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standazds, Oregon Chapter, and City of Central Point Standards. The City will, upon completion of plan review. and approval, submit the plans to the Oregon DEQ for sewer system design approval prior to issuance of a construction permit. The Developers engineer shall provide DEQ and the City with test reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance by the City. Water System:. I. The construction shall comply with Oregon Health Division requirements for Backflow prevention. 2. The developers engineer shall design. the. water system to provide a minimum fire flow. in conformance with the requirements of City's Fire Chief. 3: The construction drawings shall indicate type, size and location of water mains and Ere hydrants in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards and the recommendation of the City's Fire Chief. Site Work: I. Provide agrading/paving-plan with the,construction drawing submittal to the Public Works Department. All strictures shall have roof drains, area drains, and crawl spaces with positive drainage away fromrthe structure and drain lines connected to a curb drain,. or an approved storm sewer The developer shall provide the necessary "rough" lot grading to assure that all lots,will drain properly. The developer shall submit a grading plan with the construction drawings; and perform such grading and drainage improvements which satisfies this drainage condition, leaving only minor.grading required for each lot during house construction. Rights-of-ways/Easements: I. The construction drawings and Final Plat shall show all right-of--way and easement boundaries associated with the project. 33 2 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES, MEMORANDUM ,~-. q~~~/t ~:"~~ z8z85W Corlett Avenuc DATE: June 13, 1996. re,aRttd, o~ege„ ~,~o, JUN 1? 1996' TO: Mr. James Bennett, AICP rei: s~3.z:j.see; Planning Director CfTY oi= CENTt~diaL f>OiN7 Citiy of Central Point TfME - - .- Fa=:So3."'.='o, FROM: John Replinger, P.E. Senior Transportation Engin SUBJECT: REVIEW OF BLUEBIRD HEIGHTS TENTATIVE PLAT BACKGROUND The City of Central Point has been presented with a tentative plat fora 17 parcel subdivision known as Bluebird Heights. The developer proposes that thirteen parcels have access on'a new-cul-de-sac, tentatively known as Sunrise Way. The total- number of dwelling units taking access from Sunrise Way is calculated to be 50 units comprised of 2 single family dwellings (existing); 6 duplexes; 4 foutplexes; and• one twenty-unit multiplex: Ten additional dwelling units comprised of three duplexes and onefourplex-are proposed to have access to Cherry Street. - CONCLUSIONS The total amount of traffic generated by the development should not cause any special traffic concerns at the proposed intersection of North 10th Street and Sunrise Way. The additional units taking access onto Cherry Street will not cause any special traffic concerns at the intersection of Cherry Street and North 10th Street. Neither intersection will be overloaded and neither will meet warrants for installation of a signal. Spacing along North 10th Street from the new intersection of Sunrise Way to adjacent intersections is not ideal. However, based'on the function of and traffic volumes on North 10th Street, the proposed location of the intersection is acceptable. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The usual precautions need to be observed to ensure adequate sight distance and grades at the intersection of North 10th Street and Sunrise Way and at various driveways accessing the other public streets. I find no serious flaws with the proposal from a traffic engineering standpoint. However, from a transportation planning perspective, I would encourage the developer to consider other options with regard to subdivision layout and access. 3 ~ MLMBCR ~ SITIAIR O„ Mr. James Bennett June 13, 1996 Page 2 It is the intent of Oregon's Transportation Planning Rule that reliance on the automobile be reduced. A variety of techniques are suggested to help accomplish this. They include minimizing the use of cul- de-sacs in favor of more connected streets and developing additional access ways to encourage bicycling and walking. To avoid making another cul-de-sac, I would encourage the developer to consider tying Sunrise Way to Cherry Street. One possibility might be to change the bulb at the end of Sunrise Way for a through connection along the lot lines between,lots 9, 10,.16 and 17. If the developer cannot be persuaded to provide a through street connection, one or more walkways from the end of Sunrise Way to Cherry Street or the common areas of the Willow Glen Limited Partnership property might help to make walking and bicycling more attractive. With the tentative plat, the distance using public rights-of--way to go from lot 7 and lof 17 is more than one-fifth of a mile. COCP0005 _ o: \in\dmt\jgre\cocp0005\bluebird ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: TO`. FROM: SUBJECT: Summary July 2, 1996 Central Point Planning Commission James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director Tentative Plan for Forest Glen Subdivision, Phase VII The applicant, Gary T`. Whittle, is proposing a tentative plan for Phase VII of the Forest Glen Subdivision consisting of sevehteen parent lots: Each parent lot is fiartherdivided`into'two pad lots for a total of thirty-four pad lots. Each parent lot will be developed with two attached single-family dwelling units. Each pad lot will include one of the attached single- family dwelling units and will be under separate ownership. This is a resubmission of an earlier tentative plan for Phase VII that consisted of only eight lots. The project site is zoned R-2, Residential Two-Family and R-3, Residential Multiple-Family and is located along Glengrove Avenue and Columbine Way between Forest Glen Subdivision, Phase VI and the recently approved Snowy Mountain View Subdivision. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 invests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a subdivision tentative plan. Notice of the public hearing was effected in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Discussion The Planning, Public Safety and Public Works Departments have reviewed the tentative plan for Phase VII of the Forest Glen Subdivision and have concluded that it is in compliance with all city requirements subject to the recommended conditions for approval, except for the street frontage and the average lot depth to lot width ratio for Lots 220 and 221. Minimum lot frontage for pad lots is thirty feet. Lots 220 and 221 each have a street frontage of fifteen feet. For irregular lots, the average lot depth may not exceed two and one-half times the lot width measured at the front building line. The building line, as defined by CPMC 16.08.010 is a line on a plat indicating the limit beyond which buildings or structures may not be erected. In this case, the front building line is measured by drawing an arc twenty feet from the front property line. This is also the front yard setback area. 36 Development of Lots 220 and 221 as padlots would require a variance for both street frontage and average lot depth to lot width ratio. Development of these lots as a single parent lot would require onlya variance for average lot depthao lot width ratio. It does not appear feasible to reconfigure these lots to meet city lot standards without also reconfiguring a significant number of other lots on the tentative plan. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No, and approve the Tentative Plan for Forest Glen Subdivision, Phase VII, based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval contained in the staff reports; oc ~~ 2. Deny the proposed Tentative Plan for Forest Glen Subdivision; Phase VII; or 3. Continue the public hearing for the Tentative plan application at the discretion of the Commission Stafffurther recommends that any approval of the Tentative Plan for Forest Glen Subdivision, Phase VII should include the following conditions: 1. Lots 220 and 221 shall be reconfigured either separately or as a parent lot prior to approval of the final plat; or 2. A variance application shad be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission to bring Lots 220 and 221 into conformance with the CPMC as noted herein prior to approval of the final plat. Exhi it A Tentative Plan -Forest Glen Subdivision, Phase VII B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Public Safety Staff Report -June 14 , 1996 D. Public Works Staff Report -June 27, 1996 37 ~dJ ~XHTBIT {1 > 5( °{~ 4I i ~[~ ~~ ~ i i Y a~ l,j ~ VI g Yv «CN° ° ' /I {{j~~~,,,,,, A «o V \\ !~° ° °°« I s^ a 0 r wb o..'.uc~oou'i I ~~ ~ '~\~ Q~. i ei~oua cni i jp e .l' y\ ~'pr a. , ii~ ~ I LOO 5° X04 r ~N'~ P~ .~ ~ ~~ t / ~ v Sx s 7 r-+ ( a y . ul w fs~ x ~ ea F' :' ~ ras r' :: m ti -!~ to ,r,'~° ' r !.b4Z ,is•` `i « 'I~ ; v ~I 3 L E L e ~ ', yy o `~ \5 Jt:.::` a ..: V m :• i `\, : d J /~ LL 1a f :' P', .,,4~ asp ° c / c,., .«,e~ ...._ _..... ~ \ C~: :" ° 5 (~ {r ~ •:~ M1 Ab \\ r ~? r S Y vz< ial E ~ A p% of A -~,~ yr f,~t.' 4 \~yt' '.. ,y ,rp j Pe~. ..` _ : /'ld \:. y ry \ Z ~/ r ¢[ fn 4 a a¢ fm ..._. e ~Y '.\\ eti o~ °P~ rp / r \ ~4y 4 a a % M \ a .f' yi\ .e® 4 _ / y ~ e~ g cR lal g A « .: R: ~ x f .el % } .>" ~ •: b T,ty \\ R Y8 j ~ Q~ 98 ~y4 4 j, C x A „ m :: R~ •1` ~, ezaC `\\ ro / a oc¢OS `\ 4 °i "o\\ • __a a~e._>• ~ r`°zo[°A' ~{ 4 ~p 0 i y \\ g4 a. \\\ a m ' ° ~o j i a : %; H" r ~ CPL `\ 0 ---- ° ---- ¢ a--- ~ ~ A m „ R: uv ~~ t ~ , a Y ~zx m a. \\.~yy P. ~~ yt\\ p act x c a ___ a ~L ~ i ~~ N 1 ! ~ w n -- _ tw.c. .\ e,`y. h ~t . 4 4\ 1° P~ 8 ttc del g x .L......__........ } G:C l N A innw J py \ P' \\ t A K~~ H . _____ a .« A n I v«vw[ [ (j lit/ o v tn.« d am tol : ~ i i t « ° x cx tel R «t. u ° ~ X .................... j ° o utt __=^L___ Rai ~e R[F LI ~8 I ~.,.« A ___ « H ttc t<t a ~ _ k ~ al 8 a 5 >' 3j £ ~e ai 8 i a ..[ te, .. nc tei g °s i i+ 9M i Si a 'i z .. a «« .. __. ...._..._ .. a: ° i I I ix.a = i Olt fel i f..x n.w __ _ .. \ v° m.n i .n--pacpGpad - tl pau°Z \ _ _ .... ~ ...... .«~ x ~o~ N% 1 n«.r 8 1 ` Itr Iw ~~ ~ a_._ ~ m e me tot x i lY i \ . __ .. t Ca w' a % ~ ~ 81 w4 Y :81x4 Y ! SN 8 :'. \., m, I ~..., A _____a[..___sl _'x ~ ~ 3514: x 4°xl $^ i7 QIS c o : °' v.. «n N 8 8 :..8n.... ...... _.._.; ._... .src tat _) _.__. I ~.« I .____. ' I 1 (~ I zss K s-ss~i~z..sse:... .. .. .. '•6R6 dg ssss-tsz s z.J's-ss+ .. .. ....: v-:, .,. •... :.. 7'. ~:. .. ,.« .. i.-.svs-..:~.s..:..ss-ssss-.., s-t z-zss z-z f , ~P E-tl Oau°Z cwn[°Iwopu°~ T `y pdno~ egae~ f~ /'~ v _VS VM Crty of Cent~ar Point EXHIBIT ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date of Notice: June 12, 1996 Hearing Date: Tuesday, July 2, 1996 Time: 7:00 p.m.(Approximate) Place: Central Poinf City Council Chamber 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oegon NATURE OF HEARINGS ' James Bennett Planning Director Sandy Lommel Adnunistrative Planning Secretary Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to,revieW a Tentative Plan Application for a landpartition located in the Residential Two Family Zone (R-2) on property located at the intersection of Columbine Road and Glengrove Avenue. The site is located on Tax Lots 1800 of .Tackson County Tax Assessor Map Page 37 2W 11A. The agent of record is Farber Surveying. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for approval of tentative plans are set forth in Chapter 16 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to tentative plans, land partitions, street, water system, storm drainage and sanitary sewer and CPMC Chapter 17 relating to lot dimensions. The Tentative Plan is also reviewed for compliance with the City's Public. Works Standards. ' PUBLIC COMMTNTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the: hearing scheduled for Tuesday, ' July 2, 1996. 2. Written wmments may be sent in advance of the hearing to Central Point. City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon'97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to . the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal andahould be stated clearly to the Planning Commission.. 3J NOPHTENT/ADNIIN 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 • Pax: (541) 664-6384 4: Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Sweet, 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) 664-3324 (extension 231). SUNIMARY OF PROCEDURE At the public hearing, the Planning Commission will review the application, and technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and 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 hearing, the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Plan for the proposed land partition. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. The Council may, on its own motion,. no later than the. regularly scheduled Council meeting following the.decision date, call for a review of the Planning Commission decision. Any party aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission may. request a review of such action by the City Council by filing a written appeal to the city. no more than seven days after the date the city mails the notice of the decision. ~.~ 4 EXIiIBIT ~...... ' interoffict~ M E M O R A N D U M to: Jim Bennett Planning Director from: Mark A. Servatius Fire Chief/Building Official ~~ subject: Tentative Plan Forest Glen Subdivision Unit # 7 (revised) (Gary T. Whittle, Et AI Applicant) (Project no. 95019TP) date: June 14, 1996 I have reviewed the Tentative Plan, for Forest Glen Subdivision Unit # 7, further described as follows: AMP 37-2W-11A, Tax Lot 1800. The following are my findings: 1. All fire protection requirements; including ,hydrant locations & water supply have not been satisfied for this development. Developer will supply the Fire Department with plans indicating fire hydrant spacing not to exceed 300'. Fire Chief will approve final location(s) of all hydrants. In addjtion water system will be tested by the developer and approved by the City of Central Point. 2. Fire Department access is approved as submitted 3. No Building Permits will be issued for this development until all City of Central Point conditjons including'installation offire hydrants have been met and final plat approval is given. CONCLUSIONS: The Aforementioned Tentative Plan meets all Fire & Buildjng Department requirements & is approved pending all conditions outlined herein are complied with: Approval of submitted Tentative Plan Application(s) is not an approval of omissions or oversights by this office; or of non-compliance with any applicable regulations of this jurisdiction except as noted. Reviewed By: cc: Public Works Department Public Safety Project File c:~orr• ice~wrwa~nwenocs~asvrG~re.vmu aGI rIYA Servatius Fire Chief/Building tfficial ~~ EXHIBIT ~'- CITY OF CENTRAL POINT DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT -TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW FOREST GLEN SUBDIVISION -PHASE VII Date: June 27, 1996 Applicant: Gary Whittle; Barry N. Bloomberg, and James K: Johnson Project: Attached single-family dwelling units Location: Glengrove Avenue and Columbine Way Legal: 37S 2W Section 11A, Tax Lots 1800 Zoning; R-2 and R-3 Lots: 34 pad lots with 17 parent lots Units: 34 Plans: Forest Glen, Phase VII Tentative Plat, Revised 4/29/96, Farber Surveying Report By: Michael P: Thornton, Thornton Engineering General: 1. The applicant shall submit to the. City's Public Works Department plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modification within the City's rights-of--ways or easements. All construction shall conform to the City's Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction and such other special specifications herein. No construction shall commence until the Public Works Department has reviewed, approved, ,and issued a permit for the proposed improvements. The developer shall pay for all costs'associated with the design and installation of the improvements specified on these plans. 2. Prior to final approval of the project, the developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with a digital drawing of the Final Plat property boundaries in an AutoCadd wmpatible format. Streets/Traffic: ' 1. The construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting Plan and a Traffic Control Plan in accordance with the requirements ofthe City of Central Point Public Works Department. The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas designed to meet the City's Public Works Standards. 2. The City's Engineer shall, at the cost of the developer, evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the street section designs in accordance with the Public Works Department Design Standards Storm Drainage: 1. The developer shall construct an adequately sized storm drainage system to provide for runoff onto the subdivision property and from each lot. Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this Tentative Plan, the developer's engineer shall provide a complete set of drainage calculations for sizhrg the storm drainage system. The engineer shall use the rainfalVintensity curve obtained from the Public Works Department for hydrology calculations. ~~ ,. Public Work's Staff Report 6/27/1996 Sanitary Sewer: 1. All sewerage system design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, and City of Central Point Standazds. The City will, upon completion of plan review and approval, submit the plans to the Oregon DEQ for sewer system design approval prior to issuance of a construction permit. The Developer's. engineer shall provide DEQ and the City with test reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance by the City. Water System: 1. The construction shall comply with Oregon Health Division requirements for Backflow prevention. 2. The developer's engineer shall design the water system to provides minimum fire flow in conformance with the requirements of City's Fire Chief. 3. The construction drawings shall indicate type, size and location of water mains and fire hydrants in accordance with the City's Public Works Standazds and the recommendation of the City's Fire Chief. Site Work: 1. Provide a grading/pauing plan with the construction drawing submittal to the Public Works Department. All structures shall have roof drains, azea drains, and crawl spaces with.positive drainage away from the structure and drain Gnes connected to a curb drain, or an approved storm sewer. The developer shall provide the necessary"rough". lot grading to assure that all lots will drain properly. The developer shall submit a grading plan with the construction drawings; and perform such grading and drainage improvements which satisfies this drainage condition, leaving only minor grading required for each lot during house construction. Rights-of-ways/Easements: 1. The construction drawings and Final Plat shall show all right-of--way and easement boundaries associated with the project. 2. The Final Plat shall include a one foot access control strip at the end of Brittni Lcme. 3: All easements for public facilities running along lot lines, between lots,. shall have a minimum width of ISfeet. 2 ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 2, 1996 T0: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Variance Application for Lot 11, Beall Estates Subdivision, Phase I mma The applicant, W.L. Moore Construction Co, has applied for a Variance for Lot 1 l of the Beall Estates Subdivision, Phase I. The variance would allow Lot 11 to exceed the maximum average lot depth to lot width ratio of 2.5:1 for subdivision lots. Authority ` CPMC 1.24.020 invests the Planning Commission witli the authority to- hold a public hearing and render a decision'on any application for a subdivision variance..Notice of the public hearing was effected in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Discussion As a condition of approval for the Tentative Plan for Beall Estates Subdivision, Phase I, the Planning Commission required that either Lot 11 be reconfigured to meet the. maximum average lot depth to lot width ratio of 2.5:1 or that a Variance be applied for prior to approval of the Final Plat: The average lot depth of Lot 11 is approximately 160 feet. The lot width at the front building line or setback line is approximately 40 feet. This makes the average lot depth to lot width ratio for Lot 11 approximately 4:1. Findings CPMC 17.80.010 requires that the Planning Commission may grant a variance if findings are made that the following considerations will either result from the granting of the variance or do not apply to the requested application: 1. The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city, such as beautification or safety; ~~ 2. The'variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; 3.-The variance will utilize property within the intent and~purpose of the zoning district; 4. Circumstancesaffect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district; and ' 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. The applicant has submitted information in support of the required findings. Staff has reviewed this information and concluded that; in general, the required findings can either be met or do not apply to this application. However, staff does not agree with the applicant's method of determining the location of the front building line. There is no city ordinance, rule or policy that locates the front building line for irregularly shaped lots at the point where such a lot is sixty feet wide. Staffwould further clarify thatthe variance is not for a specific number of feet over the maximum, but rather the amount by which the average lot depth to lot width ratio exceeds 2.5:1. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1,. Adopt Resolution No. and approve the Variance for Lot 11 of Beall Estates Subdivision, Phase I, based on the findings of fact and staff conclusions contained in the record; or 2. Deny the proposed Variance; or 3. ~' Continue the public hearing for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission Exhi ' A. Site Plan for Lot 11, Beall Estates Subdivision, Phase I B. Applicant's Justification for Required Findings C. Notice of Public Hearing lllCn Ifpn Oln -y--. -~ y_y .y..y 'BR 1283.5) ~~~ I j.y-~~`~~` 13Y.63 ]0.00 50.00 __.._ _ 1 72 313. a5 ~- T- . _....._ XHisim _.._..... ~ a } ; i LDT 7_ -_ _ I S LaT z1 „; E .. ,_.°la: 6360 aq R j... is ~ ]305 s0 If _.. e; V /l` 1~ ~ rJ w V' I _ 13x.63 ~;: ! Tentative Map --.._ _ ..___.. _ 0 . ___ 113.91 ~. $ubtllvls lon .I to.'z-.. o a. ~ LOT 20 'I ,_ :. ( ' 63fi0 sq 11 ;p ~ i I I 6998 59 it ~-.. a l l ~ -_ ~ - f r ~ .. ~ ~ .. 13x,83 ~ ~ 111 6d it LOCd[etl lO 10 [fl6 SOUthedSl Ova^B^ .__ _. _.._ __ _.*Y~ I __, _. .. y, + ~' ipwn9bip 3T SOOttI Ranqe Ne• ~' ~ i Wl7 idmet YE Mer ]0 ]dn, C1ty pr rer Jackson Courts Oeno^ ' p} .+ 1` ;N L07 3 °,}I I i $ LOT 79 1~ 8360 s0 rt m;ed ~ f e. ]Oal a9 (t , _ . '' 13x,63 " i ! 115.2a I'/ (lt` App ] i c a n t: .__.._ ________ ____._~Q i I i ___.._ _ _.._ f rlrA ,~ l.:'.. Noe 7 woore. tlba .. w. I . n, uoorr ~: 3600 westa a Drive o:Yl I m Cen[ra< Poln( freg'.'~ ? LOT 4' op}. °o LOT 18 'I~ `w - Pnone: 503 ~--'ea~~ 8360 sq It m 010 ~ ,' rv >Sa2 50 Il _ ~ ~ ' ~ , 34. BJ 'Ip~ ~ I ~ 128 100' _"--'-- _-- ---'-___t - .. i ------ --"- -~ . pi m LOT 5. ° ~I o ~ LOT ]7 ( `~ 8360 aq Il m } m ~33 sq It t ` ~ ~'. ..__ 4 / 13a 83 } 1~ ~ 4 -- Y. I ~ ~ 6} ., ,' ~.. '' ~ LDT 6 °oI}I I i L07 16 ' i 8360 aq Il e; ~{ rv 9128 aq It \\, ~y ~~ 130.63 ; 166 Sa N ; ------ I I _ `J °Y L0T J 1 °o L0T 15 li n ." < .I '6359 sp I[ ~ PI I ~ 10266 9q Gt 11 I 13x.63 },^ 1 r. , ~~ I 1 ~ 16x,69 YIN 1 --__ _ ___ :., ~l ~-- v , m+iol I~ ~° LOT D o }o ; ~ LDT 1a •- _._ 9339 sq It •L ~ + + 10923 ap It rv~_ ~ ° + }a ~ ~ 8.20.00 ~ ~ ~ i i - 8.20.00. .~~ ; ]t<, 90 _. °o _ 159_63 ; -/.. ! ` N" -_ _ ~ Proposed)Westrop way o~ / LDT t3 ~`~~,,: _ y0' 1539 aq /t: i 62.00 rt a<.26~ P' " 0..20.00 ~ y 96 IS ya y ` ° ~ 1~Q G/ ~ ` fir/`` % to ; ~ ~ OT 12 V' /v ~' ~~ Notes: L,`J'~. 9 nl J LOT f0 ~ - ~1 B2] q Ic/ 1]Of iq It io 1662 sp It n' `1 ~9 ~ ~ /, ~ -DOp9(rU6ilprl tlrdw ings w)I1 ndve pr 1\\\l777 ~I ~ Ir_` t ~`'s / ~29o bep6 to 10 SX~nq tlata. Street graer j ` ~ 1 - -Tptal area 5.07 4cres. 21 Lots (\/ n 115.1a $ma7105[ 10[ 6998 Sq. it., \ ~/ ~ ~ v ~--- average lot 8630 sq. ft. ~1 22.0] Ln ~ /~ ~-f.Ont OUr :nt erva] l5 2 loot per ;9~ fi2.00 ~ '. ~I -P.C.E. ]0 feet ]n wltl[h wl;f be p1 I ~9 93 i on aii strret front ages. i vi 13ez a9 n ~`t /~~' 4^n;ect zoned R-2. T, I P~t~ ( / •.~ - ssesso~'s wap No. 37-2w-71D _ 3) i ° ~ e~p4 % o.% m F ~ _... o w ~ ,, y.. 0 0 ,J ~ (_LAN. 3 ~~ r mR Farber 8L Sons, Inc. .~ FARBER SURVEYING FORESTRY CONSULTANT - LAND SURVEYING -WATER RIGHTS EXAMINER -G.P.S. SURVEYS PROPERTY BOUNDARY EXPERTS -PLANNING REPORTS -CONSTRUCTION STAKING EXHIBIT May 23, 1996 City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Beall Estates, Phase I a variance to Chapter 16.24.050 for Lot 11 to comply with the planning commission approval an November 7, 1995 by Resolution No.-333. Chapter 16 24 050 Lots--Size and Determination. "Lot sizes shall conform with the zoning ordinance and shall be appropriate for the location of the subdivision and for the type of development and use contemplated. In the,case of irregular lots, the width shall be measured along the front building line. In no case shall the average depth be more than two and one half times the width. Corner lots for residential use shall have sufficient width to permit appropriate building setback from and orientation to both streets. Facts: Width of Lot it at the building line is 60 feet. I do not have available the specific ordinance which states this rule. I do know that-there has .not been a house built closer to the front of a lot in the City of Central on an irregular lot than the point where the lot°is 60 feet wide. Using this argument 2.5 times 60 feet width the maximum depth of the lot can be 150 feet deep. From the street frontage to the rear line is on the west boundary is 155 feet. Mid paint on the street line to a mid point an the ; rear boundary is 170 feet deep. The measured depth from the street to the rear line along the east line is 134 feet. The average depth of the lot is 155+170+134=459=3=153 feet. Therefore the variance requested is for 3 feet under Chapter 16.40 Variances. Chapter 16 40 020 Standards. Applicants for variances from , the requirements of this title shall have the burden of proving, by clear and convincing evidence, that the application meets each of the following standards: Page 1 of 3 ~7 P.O. BOX 5266 - CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502 (541) 776.0846 (of}ice) - (541) 776-2056 (FAX) A. That strict application of the provisions of the title would result in a unnecessary hardship which was not self- imposed or created by the action of the property owner. Findina- It is impractical to design any lot to meet standards as a result of the previous land owner creation of an unusual boundary of the tract being subdivided. re-configuration the lot will not result in a lot with less depth in this case resulting in an unnecessary hardship which was not self- imposed or created by the present owner. B. That there are special conditions, such as exceptional or extraordinary physical features of the property size, shape, topography or similar features, affecting. the property that are not common to all property-in the area. Findina• The southerly 20 feet more or less of this property contain the structure of the water course known as Elk Creek. All property in this area does not have this topographic feature which not available for development.. C. That the variance is not being sought merely to circumvent the intent of a city requirement, and that the variance, if grantee, would be faithful t the spirit and intent of the regulations in question, and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Findina• Though the configuration of the lot is irregular in nature-it is very close to conformance of the code.. The 3 feet over the 150 feet is 'out of conformance-by 2%. This well with in reason to be faithful to the spirit of the regulation.. The area in-question also lies in Elk Creek and will be developed and therefore not detrimental: to the public health, safety-or welfare. Page 2 of 2 ~~ D. That there would be no adverse impact of any sort upon other properties within the city. Findina~ This property is buffered from others in the city by Elk Creek and therefore will not impact adversely or otherwise in any manner. E. That there is no practical alternative to achieve the relief sough, and that if granted, the variance allows no more than the minimum amount of relief from the regulation in question necessary to achieve relief from the. unnecessary hardship. Finding: I have review the option of re-configuration to resolve the hardship. Re-configuration of the lots will only cause problems for other lots also backed by the creek. Elimination of the lot does eliminate the irregular south boundary of the parent tract of land. We are asking. for a 2% variance which is a minimal amount of relief from the regulation. Prepared by: Herbert A. Farber, President Farber & Sons, Inc. Farber Surveying 908 East Jackson Medford, Oregon 97504 AECISTE RED 541) 776-0846 PROFESSIONAL ( LA1VD SURVEYOR 7i~~" '~~ OAEGON HHY a6, 1985 HERBERT A. FARBER ales , R~N~wA~ oA~~ yz-s~-s7 Page 3 of 3 ~n Farber 8L Sons, Inc. v FARBER SURVEYING ` FORESTRY CONSULTANT -OREGON LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR -WATER RIGHTS EXAMINER PROPERTY BOUNDERY EXPERT -PLANNING REPORTS - CONSTRUCTK)N STAKING N O T S C E O F' AUTHOR 2 Z A T I O N THIS IS NOTICE THAT: /'r~-~w ~ZQE~{ ~~~. FAQ-b~25ulz-V~~~N(j- HAS BEEN RETAINED TO ACT AS AGENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF FILING AN APPLICATION FOR A Sc~l~t-A~y .s ~n -~ SFic~LL ~T~ FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE RECORDS OF JACKSON COUNTY AS: • TOWNSHIP 3 7 ,RANGE ~ ~ ,SECTION //D TAX LOT 3~0 U TOWNSHIP 3 7 ,RANGE ~~ ,SECTION ~ ZG TAX LOT TOWNSHIP ,RANGE ,SECTION TAX LOT APPLICANT: ~/~ _ SIGNATURE: V 1 ~-P ~ ~.19-r9-1-P "DATE: 7 `3 ~-' BLS PRINTED NAME: NO E(, ~/1,00~~ cQ.~a_. W . L' . W~-o p (LC Co ~VST2c~GT7o.U ADDRESS: 36(70 C.C~ ~-TZ~U ~_,C- ~/L.IUt= CITY/STATE/ZIP L Oi~(.J ~ 2 q 7SZ7 Z PHONE: 77~- Zf3 _ PROPERTY OWNER: SIGNATURE: DATE: PRINTED NAME: Ge~~o~G ~ SW'~~P.--!k ~'~ L~`~"~~ ADDRESS : N S Z Q F~~~L L/-~-IJ~ CITY/STATE/ZIP_Ct~(JT(2_rq~ O~ KIT. D ~ `1750 ~ PHONE: ti'h' y - 7_"7 9 `7 AGENT: SIGNATURE: ~ ~ ~ DATE: ~ S PRINTED NAME: I~'~~C~L=~-( [~'• ~~CZ-QG(Z- ADDRESS: `~O~ E, SJIC~GSO~ CITY/STATE/ZI vv~~~~c92 ®~ 475U y PHONE: 77(-,- OR'~F> )~ HERB FARBER P.O. BOX 5286. CENTRAL POINT, OREGON 97502. (503) 776-0846 (office) . (503) 664-5034 (home) ., City of Centrar Point EXIiIBIT G' ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date of Notice: June 12, 1996 Hearing Date: Tuesday, July 2, 1996 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: City of Central Point 155 South 2nd Central Point, Oregon NAT(JRE OF HEARINGS James Bennett Planning Director Sandy Loirunel Administrative Planning Secretary Beginning at the above place and time, the .Central Point Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review an Application for"Zoning Variance submitted by Agent Herb Farber of Farber Surveying.. The zoning variance request relates to tl~e proposed lot dimensions of an irregular lot (Lot l 1) that is more than permitted lot depth of 2.5 rimes the lot width. The site of the proposed project is located m the Residential Two Family District (R-2), at the intersection of Westrop Way and Looking Glass Way on Tax Lot 3300 of Jackson County Tax Assessor Map 372W11D. ,CRITERIA FOIL DECISION The criteria applicable to this land use decision is found in Chapter l T.80 of .the Central Point Municipal Code which states that a variance may be granted if findings are made that the ' following considerations do not apply to the proposed application: 1. The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city, such as beautification orsafely; 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; i 3. The variance'will utilize property within the intent and purpose o£ the zoning district; 4 4. Circumstances affectthe property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district; and 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 • Fax (541) 664-6384 Ji PUBLIC COMMENTS L Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the heariirg scheduled for July 2, 1996. 2. Written comments should be sent to Central Point City Hall, 155 South 2nd Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502. Attention: Jim Bennett. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised in writing prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about he decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly so that the Planning Commission can better respond to those public concerns. 4. - Copies of all. evidence relied upon Uy the applicant are available for,public review at City HaIl, .155 South Second- Street, Central Foint, .Oregon. Copies of, the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact Jun Bennett in the Planning Department at (541) 664-3324. SUMMARX OF PROCEDURE At the public hearing, the Planning Commission will review the application, and technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, and 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 hearing, the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Application for Zoning Variance. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions at the regularly scheduled Council meeting following the decision date. The Council rr~ay, on its own motion, call for a review of the Planning Commission decision. Any party aggrieved by the action of the Planrurtg Commission may request. a review of such action by the ;City Council by filing a written appeal to the city no more than seven days after the date the city mails the notice of decision. i X ~' ~~ H PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: July 2, 1996 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: James H. Bennett, AICP Planning Director SUBJECT: Variance Application for Commercial Building at I55 N. First St. umma The applicants, Milton F. &.Kathleen J: Gorden, have applied for a Variance to allow a reduction in the amount of required. off-street parking and a reduction in the required front and side yard setbacks for a commercial building located at 155 N. First St. in a C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. If the Variance application is approved, the applicant intends to submit a Site Plan application for expansion of the commercial building. uthorit CPMC 1.24.020 invests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing . and render a decision on any application for a zoning variance. Notice of the public hearing was effected in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. Discussion The applicants, Milton F: & Kathleen J. Gorden, want to expand their commercial building at 155 N. First St, in order to allow Life Styles Sports & Fitness to relocate there from their present location at 222 E. Pine St. In order to expand their commercial building sufficiently to accommodate all. of the programs and services offered by Life Styles Sports & Fitness,. the applicant has determined that the building will need to be extended to the south and west property lines. Although the building faces N. First St., the Manzanita St. property line. is considered;the front properly line. The required front yard setback is ten feet. The required side yard setback is five feet. The proposed expansion of the commercial building would require a total of twenty-eight off-street parking spaces. The project as designed can only provide twenty- three off-street parking spaces. 53 Findings CPMC 17.80.010 requires that the Planning Commission may grant a variance if findings are made that the following considerations will either result from the granting of the variance or do not apply to the requested application: 1. The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city, such as beautification or safety; 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; 3. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zoning district; 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to other property in the same zoning district; and 5: The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, .employees or family members. The applicant has submitted information in support of the required findings. Staff has reviewed this information and concluded that findings 1 thru 3 can either be met or do not apply to this application. A case can be made for finding 4 that other commercial lots with existing commercial buildings in the C-5 zoning district have been built right up to one or more property lines and cannot meet current off street parking requirements.' Staff has some difficulty with finding 5 in that the applicant has brought about, in part, by the size and design of the building the need for the requested .Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. _ and' approve the Variance for Milton F. & Kathleen J. Gorden, based on the findings of fact and staff conclusions contained in the record; or 2. Deny the proposed Variance; or 3: Continue the public hearing for the Variance application at the discretion of.ahe Commission. xhibits A. Site Plan for Proposed Expansion of Commercial Building at 155 N. First St. B. Applicant's Justification for Required Findings C. Notice of Public Hearing J~ ERHIBIT ~(`~ _ tis (~~30°, Pa2ain~ r2egA• . _ /SPACE/2ooQ~ 5a~ 5,~~ o)% 8ul~we I Ezif 3Z Spac65 5 ~f 3 z t 23 sp~c~ sc~ ,~ I CXGSt 9jG0~ ~ 3~v v ~ l a G ? 8 9 ~o t~ ~ _: ~~ ~ (~ ~ .~ ~; i N~ nI Cul 6LD(~ / 7 /6 !S ~~ !3 i 330 ~ ~ ~t.o'r ~ I ~~ ~", ~~ ' C ~ C ~ ~ C ,... . , ~$ 19 ~~ 2i R2. 23 ~ prnp~~1 front, Leo ` y: ~`~ ~~~ rL1~4NZ ~nl~ rA ST. Jr,J , ~ocm~ l~- 2.P M~gmS 1~U~~:O~~I.'1Cr +~ tANZ.l~ld fTApp--~r(~~ ~~( ~T. ~Rcn. TrBc.~ ~~ C Uwa ~a ~v.~.p,+d Curnp0.~a~.c~ Qo4 I~ I'J ~-c. rRaM ~c~,cr- of- C"czs' T~~ t~u,~o~~14. l S ~~g: ~o'T'tit C`I(~p1_rn~2~t~s ~~-f ~j `1G 7~\ ~04~ A`D'O No ~cfla~ wR~xs At.~. ~~aw,~~ Spy n ~ 'To S~1a~ Cv 4 Jb 2g ~}g ~ fit. Q 1 ~ C s~'~ K,£. // t~~"~ C r~'Eat~~.a_ _ S2 ~~~ce.~~ ~S- z~.~~ ~~~ ~z~o ~~ ~. - r ~ z a.~.,~~. _~ ~$~~Q~ z3 1N+~~ ~~~ .~---- 29~7 ~~ ~} u ~~ ~ O`X12 ~a~ ~ce, UsAg~c 8~ x i2' fi~~ce •~ ~1~I~bt' ~wti'.. ~o~t? ~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~. -~ 5'60 >~, l -9lzlUrl~~. ~~D. ~R C44C @ ( ~~qc~/,ZOO~~ 1 ~~ ~vt~-Oa.1~ z ~ {moo ~/~ 6,~ T"lo~ I~{.A,v' ~g~ a~~ K s8, a,. l,~omq~ h~c3~a<< I g` 3~. ~~ n'1bN ~ocY.E2 iC*r~ ~ I z'x 1 ~}' I ~~a~5-~ ~.eR~ ~16w1~ 57 EXHIBIT ~- May 29, 1996 Central Point Planning Commission 155 South Second St. Central Point, Or 97502 ~~~~~~~ ~~AY 3 ~ 1996' CITY OF ri_~i;AZ ;'OINI' Tinny _~_._ Additional Information: (1) Parking Attached please find our floor plan showing the "net" usable square footage. Required parking spaces are based on net footage of I space for 200 sq. ft. Therefore we would like to correct our variance request statement of 32 parking spaces needed to 28 needed with 23 spaces available. (5603 Sq. Ft.=28 parking spaces). (2) Life Styles Sports and Fitness needs;all of the 5603 Sq. Ft. in order to provide all the programs and services needed for them to succeed: These programs consist of aerobics, women and men's training, child care, etc. This is the reason we ate asking to build to the property Gne. We need all the square footage we can get. If we can't provide the footage they need they will have to relocate. Thank you, Tom. Sharpe 1105 Cherry St. Central Point, Or 97502 664-3581 58 .. Tom Sharpe 1105 Cherry St. Central Point, Or May 9, 1996 Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second St. Central Point, Or 97502 Proposal: We plan to add 3430 Sq. Ft..to our existing 3000 Sq. Ft. building located at 155 North First Street. This building is located at the corner of First and Manzanita Streets in Central Point. This 6430 Sq. Ft. building will be occupied by Life Styles Sports and Fitness, and will provide a modern health and fitness center for the residents of the Central Point area. Life Styles Sports and Fitness is now located in a 1700 Sq. Ft. building located at 222 E. Pine,$treet in Central Point. This,business presently has only 1 parking space and no room for expansion. By relocating them to the First Streetlocation we will: (1) Relieve some of the congestion in the downtown area. (2) Provide a modern health and fitness center. (3) Upgrade and beautify the First St. and Manzanta St. areas. (4) Provide a few more jobs for residents of Central Point. Variance Request: (1) Parking We are`asking the Planning Commission to approve a parking variance prior to submitting our Site Plan application so we don't waste time and money on a plan that will not meet with your approval. We feel the varying times of day that the fitness center will be used, the 23 plus parking spaces would be more than adequate. (2) We are asking approval to build the 3430 Sq. Ft. addition up to the J~ south property line. This would align the building with the Adams building to the west and all other commercial buildings on Manzanita St. (See eeclosed photos #I and #2). (3) We purpose to pave to the sidewalk on North First St. from the alley to the landscaped planter at the south drive. This would be an improvement over the parking on the adjacent "Cameron's Meat" property to the north while providing a large landscaped area on both North First St. and Manzanita St. (See photo #3) Findings: We feel that the variances should be granted because of the following facts: (1) It will upgrade and beautify the neighborhood and provide a needed Health and Fitness center for Central Point. (2) Granting the variances and completing the project will bring more customers to the existing businesses in the neighborhood and will have only a positive effect on the area. (3) The property is zoned for this type of use and the variances will not change this. (4) There aze no circumstances that affect the property that don't apply to other property in the same zoning district. We are only asking for the same considerations that were given to them. Examples: (a) Rays Food Place and Cameron Meats don't meet the parking .requirement. (b) Cameron Meats don't have sidewalks and their pazking spaces are up to the curb. (c) Most of the commercial buildings on Manzanita St, are built at, or less than the 20 ft. offset. (5) The conditions for which the variances are requested were imposed by the cities need for 1 pazking space for every 200 sq. ft. We have 6430 Sq. Ft. which equals 32 pazking spaces and: only have room for 23 on site parking spaces, with lots of on street parking. The Fitness Center is used at all times of the day. and we, feel that 23 parking spaces are more than adequate and that these variances should be granted based on these facts. Thank you and I will be looking forward to meeting with you. I can be reached by telephone at the following numbers. 664-3581 (Home) or 772-7191 (Office). Tom Sharpe fi 0 ° Ctity of Cent~ar Point EXHIBIT ~ r PLANNING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Date of Notice: June 12, 1996 Hearing Date: Tuesday, July 2, 1996 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: City of Central Point 155 South 2nd Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF HEARINGS James Bennett Planning Director Sandy Lommel Administrative Planning Secretary Beginning at the above place and time, the Central Point Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing to review an Application for Zoning Variance submitted by Milton Gordon of the Lifestyles Sports ~ Fitness. The zoning variance request relates to the proposed parking for the facility that requests reduced parking spaces from the required number of 28 spaces to 23 spaces- The applicant is also proposing a zero lot line on the south- property line in order to align the building wide adjacent commercial buildings on Manzanita Street. The site of the proposed project is located in the Thoroughfare Commercial District (C-5 Zone), at 155 North First Street, on the northwest corner of North' First Street and Manzanita `i" Street located on Tax Lot 7000 of Jackson County Tax Assessor Map 372W03DD. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The criteria applicable to this land use decision is found in Chapter 17.80 of the Central Point Municipal Code which states that a variance may be granted if findings are made that the Following considerations do not apply to the proposed application: L The variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the city, such as beautification'orscfely; 2. The variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; 3. ' The variance will utilize. property within the intent and purpose of the zoning district; 4: Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to'other property in the same zoning district; and 5. The conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-unposed tktrough the: applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. 155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 • (541) 664-3321 • Fax: (541) 664-6384 i', PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the hearing scheduled for July 2, 1996. 2: Written comments should be sent to Central Point City Hall, 155 South 2nd Street, Central Point, Oregon 97502. Attention: Jim Bennett. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised in wziting 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 so drat dle Planning Commission can better respond to those public concerns. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of die same are.. available at 15cents per page. 5. Por additionallnfonnation, the'public may contact Jim. Bennett.in die,Planning Department at (541) 664-3324. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At die public hearing, the Planning. Commission will review the application, and technical staff reports, hear testimony from die applicant, proponents, and opponents and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be: related to die criteria set forth above: At the conclusion o£the review hearing, the Plazzning Commission may approve or deny the Application for Zoning Variance. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Councll be informed about all Planning Commission decisions at the regularly scheduled Council meeting Following the decisiondate. The Council may, on its own motion, caA for a review of the-Plannizzg Commission decision. Any:party aggrieved by the action of the Planning Commission may request a review of such action by die City Council by filing a written appeal to die city no more than seven days after the date the city mails the police of decision. i N 1, g.