HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Resolution 774RESOLUTION NO. 9~'7
A RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATIONS FOR A
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONE MAP AMENDMENT,
PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
(Applicants: Miller/Hogue)
(37 2W 03B Tax Lots 500 and 600)
1. Nature of Applications. This matter involves the
following four land-use applications:
a. Comprehensive Plan amendment on Tax Lot 500, 10.11
acres, seeking a change from the current designation of Low
Density Residential to Medium Density Residential;
~.__- ;:.-~.. - >b.. - Zoning Map amendment on Taxh Lot 500, 10.11;acres,; , ..
seeking a change from the current zoning of R-1-6, Residential
. Single-Family to R-2, Residential Two-Family;
c. Planned Unit Development for an 80-lot manufactured
home subdivision on both parcels, totaling 13.99 acres; and
d. Conditional Use Permit for an 80-lot manufactured
home subdivision on both parcels, totaling 13.99 acres.
2. Procedural Background. The Citizens Advisory Committee
reviewed the Comprehensive Plan amendment and Zone Map amendment
applications at its meeting of July 9, 1996, and recommended
denial.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on all four
applications on August 20, September 3, and September 17, 1996.
The Planning Commission denied the Planned Unit Development and
Conditional Use Permit applications and recommended denial of the
Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map amendment applications.
Applicant requested City Council review of the Planning
Commission's denial of the PUD and CUP applications. The City
.~.... Council:.-held a-_public. hearing on October 17, 1996, - at which time
it considered all four applications.
3. Criteria Relevant to Decisions.
Co~rehensive Plan Amendment: CPMC Chapters 1.24 and
17.96, and Central Point Comprehensive Plan
Zone Map Amendment: CPMC Chapters 1.24 and 17.88, and
Central Point Comprehensive Plan
1 - RESOLUTION NO. ~~/ (102296)
Planned Unit Development:
and 17.68
Conditional Use Permit:
and 17.76
CPMC Chapters 1.24, 17.24,
CPMC Chapters 1.24, 17.24,
4. Findings and Conclusions on Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Application.
Standard: CPMC 17.96.050 provides that in reviewing a
Comprehensive Plan amendment application, the City shall "address
the public need and justification for the proposed change".
Findings: Applicant proposes to re-designate 10.11 acres of
Low Density Residential land to Medium Density Residential land.
The City finds that there are sufficient Medium Density
Resdental_ lands available in the -City; and -that there - is° .not': ,.a
public need or justification to re-designate the subject parcel
to Medium Density. Applicant cites as the public need and
justification for the change the goal of providing affordable
housing. The City finds that while affordable housing is a
desirable goal, there has been no showing that the City is in any
way lacking in Medium Density lands such that there is a need to
re-designate the subject parcel.
Denial: The application to re-designate Tax Lot 500 as
Medium Density Residential is denied.
5. Findings and Conclusions on Zone Map Amendment.
Standard: CPMC 17.88.040(D) provides that in reviewing a
zone map amendment application, the City must determine whether
"the public health, safety, welfare and convenience will best be
served by a proposed change of zone".
Findings: Applicant proposes to re-zone 10.11 acres from R-
1-6, Residential Single-Family, to R-2, Residential Two-Family.
The City finds that there are sufficient R-2 lands available in
the City for development of projects such as the manufactured
hom~.w,_subd~is,ion .proposed.. in the P.UD-. application, -,and. therefore......
the public health, safety, welfare and convenience will not best
be served by the proposed amendment to the zoning map. PUDs are
a permitted use in R-1 districts, so re-zoning the land R-2 is
not necessary per se for the PUD. Applicants submit that the re-
zoning is necessary to provide additional affordable housing in
the City, but there has been no showing as to any lack of
available R-2 lands in the City, or any showing as to why this
particular parcel should be re-zoned R-2.
Denial: The application to re-zone Tax Lot 500 from R-1-6,
Residential Single-Family, to R-2, Residential Two-Family, is
denied.
2 - RESOLUTION NO. ~~ (102296)
6. Findings and Conclusions on Planned Unit Development and
Conditional Use .Permit Applications.
Manufactured home subdivisions are not allowed uses on R-1
lands, either as permitted or conditional uses. The proposed PUD
manufactured home subdivision is sited on 10.11 acres of R-1-6
lands, and 3.88 acres of R-2 lands. Since the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and Zone Map .amendment applications have been denied,
the PUD and CUP applications are also denied, since those
applications do not comply with the existing zoning on the
subject properties.
Even if the Comprehensive Plan and Zone Map amendments had
been granted, the City finds that the PUD should be denied for
failure to meet the following criteria of CPMC 17.68.040:
.., :..
-~"A° ° ~-That the development of1ja harmonious, integrated,-
- plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements`of "
this title."
Applicants submit that the justification for the PUD is the
goal of providing affordable housing in Central Point, which goal
justifies lots as small as 4,480 square feet in the proposed PUD.
The City finds that while providing affordable housing may be a
desirable goal, it does not justify approval of lots which are
only 75% as large as required in the R-2 district (4,480 square
feet versus the 6,000 square foot minimum in the R-2 district).
"B. That the proposal will be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zoning
ordinance and other applicable policies of the City."
The City finds that the lot sizes proposed in the PUD
application constitute too large a variation from the City
standards.
"C. The location, size, design, and operating
characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse
impact on the livability, value or appropriate
development- of the sur-rounding-area. ~'
The City finds that the proposed PUD contains too many lots
of substandard size, making it inconsistent with the surrounding
residential areas. The City finds that the PUD will have more
than a minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or
appropriate development of the surrounding area.
Denial: The PUD and CUP applications are denied.
3 - RESOLUTION NO..~ (102296)
~ ~ T
_ P
Passed by the Council and signed by me in authentication of
its passage this _j~ day of _ 1996.
Mayor Rusty McGrath
ATTEST:
City Repre tative
Approved by me this _[~ day of ~~st~r,;:~e~ 1996.
~-
~' Mayor Rusty McGrath
4 - RESOLUTION NO. ~~ (102296)