HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - Jan. 6, 2015 CENTRAL
POINT
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
January 6, 2015 - 6:00 p.m.
I_ MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
I1. ROLL CALL
Planning Commission members Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Tim Schmeusser, Tom Van
Voorhees, Susan Szczesniak, Craig Nelson Sr. and Kay Harrison
III_ CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
Review and approval of November 4, 2014 Planning Commission Minutes
Review and approval of November 20, 2014 Joint Planning Commission Minutes
(Meeting with Jackson County)
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
V1. BUSINESS
A_ Consideration c f Resolution No. 812 forwarding a favorable recerrimendation to
the City Council to approve Amendments to the Central Point Municipal Code to
add Chapter 17.08.010-Definition,^Congregate Housing•', Chapter 17.64.040, oft--
Street Parking Requirements, Table 17.64.02A adjusting parking requirements for
Congregate Housing: Chapter 1 7.65.050 Zoning Regulations, TOD Eistrict, Tables 1
through 3; and Chapter 17.65.070 Zoning Regulations, TOD Corridor, Tables 4 and 5,
to delete the terns "Senior Housing" and replace the term "Senior Housing" with the
tern "Congregate Housing" File No. 14022
B_ Consideration of Resolution No. 813 forwarding a favorable recommendation to
the City Council to Change approximately 5 acres of land in City core area
designated low density residential to civic to reflect actual land uses as a park, a
park service yard and a city corporation yard. File No. 14020
C_ Consideration of Resolution No. 814 forwarding a favorable recommendation to
the City Council to approve A Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for
CP-1B (Tole), An Urban Reserve Area of-Central Point, File No_ 14009
D. Consideration of Resolution No. 815 authorizing Testing Laboratories as a similar
and compatible use within the C-2(M), C-5 and M-1 zoning districts, Applicant
Kenevir Research.
VII. DISCUSSION
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
X. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
November 4, 2014
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
Kay Harrison led the pledge of allegiance.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Tim Schmeusser, Susan Szczesniak,
and Kay Harrison were present. Tom Van Voorhees and Craig Nelson were
absent. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development
Director, and Karin Skelton, Planning Secretary.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
None
IV. MINUTES
Mike Oliver s made a motion to approve the October 7, 2014 minutes. Kay
Harrison seconded the motion. Roll Call: Mike Oliver, yes; Susan Szczesniak,
yes; Tim Schmeusser, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
None
VI. BUSINESS
Tom Humphrey introduced Resolution 809 forwarding a favorable recommendation to
the City Council to approve a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for CP-4D,
an Urban Reserve Area of the City of Central Point. The City's Regional Plan Element
includes a provision that prior to expansion of the urban growth boundary into an urban
reserve area it is necessary to adopt a concept plan for the affected urban reserve. Given
the pending urban growth boundary application that includes parts of CP-4D, it is
necessary that a concept plan be prepared and adopted for CP-4D. The Planning
Commission has previously reviewed a draft of the CP-4D Concept Plan and directed
staff to distribute the document to affected agencies for comment. RVMPO, the Rogue
River Valley Irrigation District, Jackson County and ODOT have all provided their
comments which have been incorporated into the plan. The Citizen's Advisory
Committee has also reviewed and recommended approval of the plan. Mr. Humphrey
explained that the CP-4D is mostly parks and open space. He stated that the Concept
Planning Commission Minutes
November 4, 2014
Page 2
Plan is for the entire area, but the City was only taking in approximately 50 acres. It
would be a narrow strip of land leading to the CP-1 B. Kay Harrison asked if the
equestrian groups had been included in the notice. Mr. Humphrey responded that he had
informed Jenna Steinke about the CP-4D Concept Plan.
Mike Oliver made a motion to approve Resolution 809. Kay Harrison seconded the
motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes; Kay Harrison, yes; Tim Schmeusser, yes.
Chuck Piland, yes. Motion Passed
DISCUSSION
Mr. Humphrey introduced a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for CP-1B, an
urban Reserve area of the City of Central Point. He explained that Cardmore Trucking
was planning to build their facility in CP-1 B. The area would be"employment" land,
including retail, industrial and public use. The retail facilities would be specifically to
serve the immediate area and not as a draw from the freeway. They would purposely be
located so as not to be viewed from the freeway. ODOT had been concerned about this
and also about maintaining the interchange as it is.
Mr. Humphrey informed the Planning Commission that there were currently portions of
this parcel that were residential and farm use, and that those residences and farms would
become legal nonconforming uses. He stated that the land is not part of the irrigation
district. Mike Oliver asked if there was a plan for getting water to the area. Hanging
pipes were discussed as an option for bringing the water to the area. Mr. Humphrey
stated that the city has been pursuing objectives to help them until water is brought out
there. He stated that it would probably cost around a million dollars to connect and might
be funded by grants and/or loans. He informed the Planning Commission that at this
point it was merely a discussion and the Concept Plan would be reviewed and refined
prior to presenting it for approval.
Mr. Humphrey introduced the second item for discussion, the Agreement between the
City of Central point and Jackson County for the joint management of the Central Point
Urban Growth Boundary. He explained that the City's Regional Plan Element includes a
provision that prior to expansion of the urban growth boundary into an urban reserve area
it is necessary to adopt conceptual land use and transportation plans for the affected urban
reserve. A second urban growth boundary application has been submitted to Jackson
County on behalf of Cardmore Trucking that includes 50 acres of CP-1 B. The consultant
for the applicant has prepared a rudimentary conceptual plan for their application but the
City has initiated its own. The rough draft of the CP-1 B conceptual plan is being
submitted to the Planning Commission to discuss and critique. Pending the Planning
Commission's direction the draft will be completed with findings and distributed to the
affected agencies for comment. After that it will return to the Commission for further
review and recommendation to the City Council.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 4, 2014
Page 3
The foregoing minutes of the November 4, 2014 Planning Commission meeting were
approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the day of
, 2014.
Planning Commission Chair
City of Central Point
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2014
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M.
Chuck Piland led the pledge of allegiance.
II. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Craig Nelson, Tom Van Voorhees,
Susan Szczesniak, and Kay Harrison were present. Tim Schmeusser was absent.
Also in attendance from Jackson County Planning Commission were
Commissioners, Don Greene, Dick Theriolf, Joel Ockunzie, Brad Bennington,
Craig Anderson, and Kelly Madding. .
Also in attendance were Central Point Community Development Director Tom
Humphrey, Karin Skelton, Central Point Planning Secretary, Laura Marshall,
Jackson County Planning Secretary and Craig Anderson, Jackson County Planner.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
None
IV. MINUTES
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
None
VI. BUSINESS
Kelly Madding explained the structure of the meeting, breaking it down into two parts,
part one a legislative hearing and part two, a quasi-judicial application. The processes for
each would be done separately. She stated that after the staff presentation and the public
testimony, in each matter, Jackson County would retire from the room while Central
Point deliberated and came to a decision.
Torn Humphrey addressed the Planning Commissions regarding Resolution 810,
consideration of forwarding a favorable recommendation to the Central Point City
Council to Revise the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (UGBMA)
between the City of Central Point and Jackson County to improve consistency with the
Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan and the City's Regional Plan Element. He
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2014
Page 2
stated that the agreement added Gibbon Acres and the Expo to the agreement as areas of
mutual planning concern.
He stated the adoption of this proposed Major Text Amendment would amend the
County's Urban Growth Boundary Agreement with the City of Central Point. The
proposed amendment would effectively result in new policy and/or implementation
strategies within the Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement with the City of
Central Point and therefore falls within the definition of a Major Text Amendment.
The proposed major text amendment will serve to bring the City of Central Point Urban
Growth Boundary Management Agreement into compliance with the GBCVRP
Performance Indicator 2.9.5, adopted pursuant to the requirements of ORS
197.656(2)(b)(C).
The City has similar criteria for initiating amendments to the comprehensive plan or the
urban growth boundary(ref. CMPC Section 17.96.200). In this case, the City Council
passed a Resolution of Intent (No. 1378) in August 2013 to initiate changes to its Urban
Growth Boundary and its Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement with Jackson
County.
The proposed major text amendment is consistent with the Central Point Municipal Code
- Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Boundary Amendments and will serve to bring
the City of Central Point Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement into
compliance with the City's Regional Plan Element.
He addressed the audience to inform them that this would not affect anyone in forest
Gibbon Acres with regard to their property or taxes in any way, nor would it bring them
into the City limits.
Mike Oliver asked for clarification regarding the Seven Oaks area. He asked if it was
currently an area of mutual planning concern or was it now being designated as an area of
mutual planning concern? Mr. Humphrey responded that it has been as area of mutual
planning concern, however it would be affected the development of CP-1 B and so the
City and County will continue to collaborate regarding the area.
Don Greene asked for clarification regarding the language in the agreement on page 12
regarding including the irrigation districts in the conceptual stage of the planning process.
Kay Harrison stated she was glad to see them included in land use decisions.
Kelly Madding explained that the language in the agreement allowed for the irrigation
districts to be included in any discussions regarding land development.
Joel Occunzi asked if in the future there were changes to the agricultural element would
the existing infrastructure be preexisting non-conforming or would there be a requirement
to bring it up to new standards. Mr. Humphrey replied that he believed the state would
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2014
Page 3
manage that. We are simply inviting the irrigation district to be part of the conceptual
planning process.
Mr. Humphrey addressed the new language relating to periodic review. He indicated the
language in the agreement was taken directly from the County's Comprehensive Plan.
Mike Oliver asked about reference to Erickson Air Crane on page 14 of the Agreement.
Mr. Humphrey explained that that language indicated that taking water to Erickson was
originally done by a "reasons exception". Now that there is a URA out there and a
proposal to develop in the Seven Oaks area, the question becomes "who is entitled to use
the water along that route ". The language was defining who would be eligible to use the
water along the route to the CP-1B area.
Mr. Oliver suggested a change to the language in the lower portion of page 15 paragraph
(A). He suggested adding language so it would read "CAC and planning commissions
review and make recommendation to the City Council and Board of County
Commissioners."
Mr. Occunzi expressed concern that Medford was mentioned in relation to the Forest
Gibbon Acres area. Mr. Humphrey stated that it would remain under the County's
jurisdiction and that only the County and Central Point would be involved in any
discussions regarding the area.
The Public Portion of the meeting was opened.
Arnold Strite asked a question regarding Richey Lane, located between Gibbon Road
and West Gregory Rd. He asked who would be responsible for upkeep of the road and
mentioned water buildup.
Ms. Madding informed him that it would remain under the County's jurisdiction and that
nothing regarding Richey Rd. would change unless someone wanted to develop there.
Jay Harlan addressed the Commissioners. He suggested adding language to paragraph 14
so that it would read "Except for URAs, no other land or non-municipal improvements"
Mr. Humphrey agreed that would be a good change.
The public portion of the meeting was closed.
Jackson County recessed while Central Point Planning Commission deliberated.
The Central Point Planning Commission discussed Resolution 810. Mr. Humphrey stated
that it would be making the language in the agreement with Jackson County clearer with
regard to the processes for transitioning County land into the City of Central Point and
would not affect any of the City's current projects.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2014
Page 4
Mike Oliver moved to approve Resolution 810 with the two amendments (pg. 14 & 15 of
the Agreement). Kay Harrison seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes,
Susan Szczesniak, yes; Tom Van Voorhees, yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes.
Motion Passed.
Jackson County Planning Commission Returned. They were informed of the decision to
approve Resolution 810.
There was a 5 minute recess of the joint meeting.
7:30 p.m. Commission Don Greene call the joint meeting back to order. He introduced
the second item on the agenda., Consideration to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map
(Minor) to add approximately 48 acres to the City of Central Point Urban Growth
Boundary(UGB) along and northeast of Interstate 5; along, and including Dean Creek
Road; between the Seven Oaks Interchange (Exit 35) to the northwest and Old Upton
Road to the southeast.
Craig Anderson presented a summary of the proposal. The adoption of the proposed
Minor Map Amendment would amend the County's Comprehensive Plan Map by adding
approximately 48 acres of Bear Creek Greenway and Open Space lands to the Central
Point Urban Growth Boundary. The land situated between the northern extent of the
existing Central Point Urban Growth Boundary and the Seven Oaks interchange and is
under City of Central Point and Jackson County ownership. The area to be amended
includes approximately 10 acres of ODOT road Right of way.
The properties will retain the County's Plan designations and zoning following inclusion
in the UGB until such time as the properties are annexed and the appropriate City of
Central Point zoning is applied the subject property is within Urban Reserve Area CP-4D.
The City of Central Point has prepared a Concept Plan for the CP-4D Urban Reserve
Area. This plan has been reviewed by the Rogue Valley Metropolitan Planning
Organization, the Rogue River Valley Irrigation District, Jackson County, ODOT, DLCD
and 1000 Friends of Oregon and their comments have been incorporated into the plan.
The City of Central Points Citizens Advisory Committee has also reviewed and
recommended approval of the plan. The plan satisfies the Regional Plan requirements.
Approval of CP-4D would benefit the city by connecting it to the CP-1B. The
development of CP-1B would be an economic benefit to the city.
Torn Humphrey addressed the Commissioners regarding the Conceptual Plan for CP-4D.
He stated it would be primarily open space which would include the bike path and Dean
Creek Road. He indicated that the long term objective is to provide a physical connection
with CP-1B.There is a one acre tax lot included in CP-4D which will be re-zoned R-L.
The owner would like to be in the city.
Planning Commission Minutes
November 20, 2014
Page 5
Mike Oliver asked what the police patrol situation would be. Mr. Humphrey stated that
the police chief is aware of the area and that the city currently patrols the greenway
within the City limits.
Joel Occunzi asked when the one acre parcel would be annexed into the city.
Mr. Humphrey indicated possibly within the next 12 months.
The public portion of the meeting was opened.
Greg Holmes of 1000 Friends of Oregon addressed the Commissioners. He stated that
they did support the application and the projected outcome. He said that this was the first
conceptual plan in any jurisdiction and could serve as a template for other jurisdictions to
ensure orderly expansion. He expressed concern that the process was being done in 2
minor amendments instead of one major one which would include both CP-4D and CP-
1 B. He stated his concern that the current process might possibly be open to being
challenged. He reiterated that he did support this process,just that it would have been
cleaner to have done it in one step.
Mr. Humphrey stated he agreed with Mr. Holmes and explained that the reason they were
doing it as they were was because all the lands involved were almost exclusively owned
by the County and the City.
The Public portion of the meeting was closed.
Jackson County Planning Commission recessed while Central Point deliberated.
Kay Harrison made a motion to approve Resolution 811. Tom Van Voorhees seconded
the motion. ROLL CALL: Mike Oliver, yes, Susan Szczesniak, yes; Tom Van Voorhees,
yes; Craig Nelson, yes; Kay Harrison, yes. Motion Passed.
Jackson County Planning Commission returned and was informed that Central Point had
approved Resolution 811.
Don Green adjourned the joint meeting of the City of Central Point and Jackson County
Planning Commissioners at 8:50 p.m.
The foregoing minutes of the November 20, 2014 Joint Planning Commission meeting of
Jackson County and the City of Central Point were approved by the Planning
Commission at its meeting on the day of , 2014.
Planning Commission Chair
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO.812 FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD
CHAPTER 17.08.010-DEFINITION,"CONGREGATE HOUSING";CHAPTER 17.64.040,OFF-STREET
PARKING REQUIREMENTS,TABLE 17.64.02A ADJUSTING PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR
CONGREGATE HOUSING;CHAPTER 17.65.050 ZONING REGULATIONS,TOD DISTRICT,TABLES 1
THROUGH 3;AND CHAPTER 17.65.070 ZONING REGULATIONS,TOD CORRIDOR,TABLES 4 AND 5,
TO DELETE THE TERM"SENIOR HOUSING"AND REPLACE THE TERM"SENIOR HOUSING" WITH
THE TERM"CONGREGATE HOUSING" FILE NO. 14022.AMEND CHAPTER 17.77.040(D)
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS(ADU),GENERAL PROVISIONS, MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA
--------- ----
Planning Department
STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Tom Humphrey,AICP,
POINTCommunity Development Directo,
STAFF REPORT
January 6,2015
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14022
Amendment to the Central Point Municipal Code, Chapter 17.08 .010 Definitions, Specific, defining the term
"Congregate(Senior) Housing"; 17.64.040, Off-Street Parking Requirements, Table 17.64.02A adjusting parking
requirements for Congregate(Senior)Housing, 17.65.050 Zoning Regulations, TOD District, Tables 1 through 3,
and 17.65.070 Zoning Regulations, TOD Corridor, Tables 4 and 5,to delete the term "Senior Housing" and replace
with the term "Congregate (Senior) Housing"; Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt,AICP
BACKGROUND:
As the result of a recent application three issues came to the attention of the Community Development Department as
follows:
1. Section 17.65.050, Tables 1 and 4 refers to"Senior Housing"as a use; however,the term "Senior Housing"is not
defined. It is proposed that the term "Senior Housing"be replaced with"Congregate(Senior) Housing'a more
generally acknowledged and accepted term within the housing industry.Additionally, Congregate(Senior)
Housing will be listed under the multifamily dwelling housing category in Tables 1 through 5 in Sections
17.65.050 and 17.65.070.
It is proposed that Section 17.08.010 Definitions be amended to add the term "Congregate(Senior) Housing" to
mean a multi family living arrangement, with common dining facilities, designed for healthy older adults in which
residents live in their own living unit and have various opportunities for socialization with other residents.
Housekeeping and maintenance services are provided, hut health maintenance services are scheduled
independently by the residents.
2. Section 17.65.050, Tables 1 and 4 prohibits"Senior Housing"within the LMR district. The proposed amendment
will allow Congregate(Senior) Housing within the LMR district,but only when part of an existing or proposed
congregate housing project located on abutting property under the same ownership within the MMR or HMR
district.
3. Table I7.64.02A Residential Off-Street Parking Requirements currently requires 1 parking space per dwelling
unit. It is proposed that the required parking be reduced to .5 spaces per dwelling unit per the Institute of
Transportation Engineers, Parking Generation, 3rd Edition.
ISSUES:
It is recognized that congregate housing, as a use, has employees for housekeeping, administration,common dining,etc.,
which sets it apart from an apartment complex. For this reason the allowance of congregate housing within the LMR zone
has been restricted to those incidences where it is part of, and under the same ownership of, an abutting congregate
housing project in the MMR or HMR zoning district. The design of a congregate housing project in the LMR district will
be subject to the LMR residential design and development standards, including density.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Page 1 of 2
Attachment"A—Draft Ordinance"
ACTION:
Consideration of Resolution No. 812
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 812 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council.
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT"A"
Chapter 17.08 DEFINITIONS
17.08.010 Definitions, specific
"Congregate (Senior) Housing" means a multi-family living arrangement, with common
dining facilities, designed for healthy older adults in which residents live in their own living
unit and have various opportunities for socialization with other residents. Housekeeping and
maintenance services are provided, but health maintenance services are scheduled
independently by the residents.
"Dwelling Unit, Living Unit" means one or more rooms designed for occupancy by one family
and having no more than one cooking facility.
Chapter 17.64 Off-Street Parking and Loading
17.64.040 Off-Street parking requirements
TABLE 17.64.02A
RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Vehicle Parking Requirement(fractions rounded down to the
Use Categories closest whole number)
1t '1Ali.
Single-Family Residential 2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
Accessory Dwelling,Unit 1 space per accessory dwelling unit.
Two-Family 2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
1 space per studio or 1-bedroom unit;
1.5 spaces per 2-bedroom unit; and
Multiple-Family
2 spaces per 3+-bedroom unit.
plus 1 guest parking space for each 4 dwelling units or fraction thereof.
2 spaces per dwelling unit on the same lot or pad as the mobile home(may be
Mobile Home Parks
tandem); plus 1 guest space for each 4 mobile homes.
Residential Home 2 spaces per dwelling unit, both of which must be covered.
Residential Facility .75 spaces per bedroom
EXHIBIT"A"
TABLE 17.64.02A
RESIDENTIAL OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS
Minimum Vehicle Parking Requirement(fractions rounded down to the
Use Categories closest whole number)
Congregate(Senior) Housing 4-.5 spaces per dwelling unit
Boarding Houses, Bed and 1 space per guest unit; plus 1 space per each 2 employees
Breakfast
CHAPTER 17.65 TOD DISTRICTS AND CORRIDORS
17.65.050 Zoning regulations - TOD district
Table 1
TOD District Land Uses
Use Categories Zoning Districts
LMR MMR HMR EC GC C OS
Residential
Dwelling, Single-Family
Large and standard lot P L5 N N N N N
Zero lot line, detached P P N N N N N
Attached row houses P P P C N N N
Dwelling, Multifamily
■
Multiplex, apartment P P P L1 L1 N N
ICongregate(Senior) Housing L6 P P L1 U. N N
Accessory Units P1 P1 P1 C N N N
Boarding/Rooming House N C C N N N N
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 1
TOD District Land Uses
Use Categories Zoning Districts
LMR MMR HMR EC GC C OS
Family Care
Family day care P P P N N N N
Day care group home C C P N N N N
Adult day care C C C N N N N
Home Occupation P P P P N N N
Residential Facility P P P N N N N
Residential Home P P P N N N N
ISenier-Healing N R R L4 N G N
Commercial
Entertainment N N C P P N N
Professional Office C L3 L3, L4 P P P N
Retail Sales and Service
Sales-oriented C L3 L3 P P N N
Personal service-oriented C C C P P N N
Repair-oriented N N N P P N N
Drive-through facilities N N N P P N N
Quick vehicle service N N N P P N N
Vehicle sales, rental and repair N N N P P N N
Tourist Accommodations
Motel/hotel N N C P P N N
Bed and breakfast inn C C P P P N N
Industrial
Manufacturing N N N N P N N
EXHIBIT"A"
Table 1
TOD District Land Uses
Use Categories Zoning Districts
LMR MMR HMR EC GC C OS
Industrial Service
Light N N N N P N N
Heavy N N N N C N N
Wholesale Sales N N N N P N N
Civic
Community Services C C C N N P C
Hospital C C C C , N C N
Public facilities C C C C C C N
Religious assembly C C C C N P N
Schools C C C N N P L2
Utilities C C C C C C C
Open Space
Parks and Open Space P P P P P P P
N--Not permitted.
P--Permitted use.
P1--Permitted use, one unit per lot.
C--Conditional use.
L1--Only permitted as residential units above ground floor commercial uses.
L2--School athletic and play fields only. School building and parking lots are not permitted.
L3--Ground floor business within a multifamily building. Maximum floor area of ten thousand square feet per tenant.
L4--Second story offices may be permitted in areas adjacent to EC zones as a conditional use.
EXHIBIT "A"
L5--Only permitted as a transition between lower density zones and/or when adjacent to an environmentally sensitive
area.
L6—Permitted only when part of an existing or proposed congregate housing project on abutting property under the
same ownership within the MMR or HMR district..
Table 2
TOD District Zoning Standards
Standard Zoning Districts
LMR MMR HMR EC GC C OS
Density--Units Per Net Acre
(f)
Maximum 12 32 NA NA NA NA NA
Minimum 6 14 30 NA NA NA NA
Dimensional Standards
Minimum Lot or Land
Area/Unit
Large single-family 5,000 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA
Standard single-family 3,000 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 2,700 SF 2,700 SF' NA NA NA NA NA
Attached row houses 2,000 SF 1,500 SF 1,200 SF NA NA NA NA
Multifamily and chief NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
trettsing
Average Minimum Lot or
Land Area/Unit I
Large single-family 7,500 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA
Standard single-family 4,500 SF NA NA NA NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 3,000 SF 3,000 SF NA NA NA NA NA
Attached row houses 2,500 SF 2,000 SF 1,500 SF NA NA NA NA
Multifamily a - ;ief NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 2
TOD District Zoning Standards
Standard Zoning Districts
LMR MMR HMR EC GC C OS
Minimum Lot Width
Large single-family 50' NA NA NA NA NA NA
Standard single-family 50' NA NA NA NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 30' 30' NA NA NA NA NA
Attached row houses 24' 22' 18' NA NA NA NA
Multifamily and-wrier NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
housing
Minimum Lot Depth 50' 50' 50' NA NA NA NA
Building Setbacks
Front (min./max.) 10'/15' 10'/15' 0715' 0' 15' 5' 15'
Side (between bldgs.) 5' detached 5' 5' 0' 0' 0' 5'
(detached/attached) 0' detached detached 10' (b) 15' (b) 20' (b)
attached 0' 0'
(a)(c) attached attached
(a)(c) (a)
Corner (min./max.) 5'/10' 5'/10' 0'/10' 5'/10' 15'/30' 5'/10' 15'/NA
Rear 15' 15' 10' 0' 15' (b) 0' 5'
10' (b) 0' 20' (b)
Garage Entrance (d) (d) (d) (e) (e) (e) NA
Maximum Building Height 35' 45' 60' 60' 60' 45' 35'
Maximum Lot Coverage (g) 80% 80% 85% 100% 100% 85% 25%
Minimum Landscaped Area 20% of site 20% of 15% of 0% of 15% of 15% of NA
(i) area site area site area site site site area
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 2
TOD District Zoning Standards
Standard Zoning Districts
LMR MMR HMR EC GC C OS
(j) area area
(h)
Housing Mix
Required housing types as < 16 units in development: 1
listed under Residential in housing type.
Table 1.
16--40 units in development: 2
housing types.
> 40 units in development: 3 or
more housing types (plus
approved master plan)
Notes:
NA--Not applicable.
(a) The five-foot minimum also applies to the perimeter of the attached unit development.
(b) Setback required when adjacent to a residential zone.
(c) Setback required is ten feet minimum between units when using zero lot line configurations.
(d) Ten feet behind front building facade facing street.
(e) Garage entrance shall not protrude beyond the face of the building.
(f) Net acre equals the area remaining after deducting environmental lands, exclusive employment areas, exclusive
civic areas and right-of-way.
(g) Lot coverage refers to all impervious surfaces including buildings and paved surfacing.
EXHIBIT "A"
(h) Parking lot landscaping and screening requirements still apply.
(i) Landscaped area shall include living ground cover, shrubs,trees, and decorative landscaping material such as
bark, mulch or gravel. No pavement or other impervious surfaces are permitted except for pedestrian pathways and
seating areas.
(j) Rooftop gardens can be used to help meet this requirement.
Table 3
TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards
Use Categories Minimum Required Parking
Residential
Dwelling, Single-Family 2 spaces per unit.
Large and standard lot
Zero lot line, detached
Attached row houses
Dwelling, Multifamily
Plexes 1.5 spaces per unit.
Apartments and condominiums 1.5 spaces per unit
Congregate(Senior) Housing .5 spaces per dwelling unit
Dwelling, Accessory Unit 1 space per unit.
Boarding/Rooming House 1 space per accommodation, plus 1 space for every 2 employees.
Family Care 1 space for every 5 children or clients (minimum 1 space); plus 1
Family day care space for every 2 employees.
Day care group home
Adult day care
Home Occupation Shall meet the parking requirement for the residence.
Residential Facility 1 space per unit.
Residential Home 1 space per unit.
Senior-140146440 1-space-per unit.
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 3
TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards
Use Categories Minimum Required Parking
Commercial
Entertainment 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area,except for theaters which
shall provide 1 space per 4 seats.
Professional Office 1 space per 400 square feet of floor area.
Retail Sales and Service
Sales-oriented 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area.
Personal service-oriented 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area.
Repair-oriented 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area.
Drive-through facilities Parking as required by the primary use.
Quick vehicle service 1 space per 750 square feet of floor area.
Vehicle sales, rental and repair 1 space per 1,000 square feet of floor area.
Tourist Accommodations 1 space per guest unit, plus 1 space for every 2 employees.
Motel/hotel
Bed and breakfast inn
Industrial
Manufacturing 1 space per employee of the largest shift.
Industrial Service 1 space per employee of the largest shift.
Light
Heavy
Wholesale Sales 1 space per employee of the largest shift.
Civic
Community Services Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use
review.
Hospital 1 space per 500 square feet of floor area.
Public Facilities Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 3
TOD District and Corridor Parking Standards
Use Categories Minimum Required Parking
review.
Religious Assembly 1 space per 100 square feet of floor area for the main assembly area.
Schools 2 spaces per classroom.
Utilities Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use
review.
Open Space
Parks and Open Space Number to be determined as part of site plan or conditional use
review.
(Ord. 1981 §4(Exh. D),2014; Ord. 1971 §4(Exh. C)(part),2013; Ord. 1867§4(part), 2006; Ord. 1815§1(part), Exh.
B(part), 2000).
Table 4
TOD Corridor Land Uses
Use Categories Zoning Districts
LMR MMR EC aa GC
Residential
Dwelling, Single-Family
Large and standard lot P L4 N N
Zero lot line, detached P P N N
Attached row houses P P N N
Dwelling, Multifamily
Multiplex, apartment P P L1 L1
Congregate (Senior)Housinq L5 P L1
Accessory Units P1 P1 C N
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 4
TOD Corridor Land Uses
Use Categories Zoning Districts
LMR MMR EC GC
Boarding/Rooming House N C N N
Family Care
Family day care P P N N
Day care group home C C N N
Adult day care C C N N
Home Occupation P P P N
Residential Facility P P N N
Residential Home P P N N
Senior-1400644g N R 14 N
Commercial
Entertainment N N P P
Professional Office C L3 P P
Retail Sales and Service
Sales-oriented C L3 P P
Personal service-oriented C C P P
Repair-oriented N N P P
Drive-through facilities N N P P
Quick vehicle service N N P P
Vehicle sales, rental and repair N N N P
Tourist Accommodations
Motel/hotel N N P P
Bed and breakfast inn C C P P
Industrial
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 4
TOD Corridor Land Uses
Use Categories Zoning Districts
LMR MMR EC GC
Manufacturing N N N P
Industrial Service
Light N N N P
Heavy N N N C
Wholesale Sales N N N P
Civic
Community Services C C N N
Hospital C C C N
Public Facilities C C C C
Religious Assembly C C C N
Schools C C N N
Utilities C C C C
Open Space
Parks and Open Space P P P P
N--Not permitted.
P--Permitted use.
P1--Permitted use, one unit per lot.
C--Conditional use.
L1--Only permitted as residential units above ground floor commercial uses.
L2--School athletic and play fields only. School building and parking lots are not permitted.
L3--Ground floor business within a multifamily building. Maximum floor area of ten thousand square feet per tenant.
EXHIBIT "A"
L4--Only permitted as a transition between adjacent lower density zones and/or when adjacent to an environmentally
sensitive area.
L5—Permitted only when part of an existing or proposed congregate housing project on abutting property under the
same ownership within the MMR or HMR district.
Table 5
TOD Corridor Zoning Standards
Standard Zone Districts
LMR MMR EC GC
Density--Units Per Net Acre (f)
Maximum 12 32 NA NA
Minimum 6 14 NA NA
Dimensional Standards
Minimum Lot Area or Land Area/Unit
Large single-family 5,000 SF NA NA NA
Standard single-family 3,000 SF NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 2,700 SF 2,700 SF NA NA
Attached row houses 2,000 SF 1,500 SF NA NA
Multifamily and-cenfef-housing 2,000-SFNA 2,000-SFNA 4008 NA
SF NA
Average Minimum Lot or Land
Area/Unit
Large single-family 7,500 SF NA NA NA
Standard single-family 4,500 SF NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 3,000 SF 3,000 SF NA NA
Attached row houses 2,500 SF 2,000 SF NA NA
Multifamily and-cenief housing 2,000 SFNA 2,000 SFNA 4-000 NA
S.ENA
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 5
TOD Corridor Zoning Standards
Standard Zone Districts
LMR MMR EC GC
Minimum Lot Width
Large single-family 50' NA NA NA
Standard single-family 50' NA NA NA
Zero lot line detached 30' 30' NA NA
Attached row houses 24' 22' NA NA
Multifamily and-senior Mousing NA NA NA NA
Minimum Lot Depth 50' 50' NA NA
Building Setbacks
Front(min./max.) 10'/15' 10'/15' 0' 15'
Side(between bldgs.) 5' detached 5'detached 0' 0'
detached/attached) 0'attached (a) (c) 0' attached (a) (c) 10'(b) 15'(b)
Corner(min./max.) 5'/10' 5'/10' 5'/10' 15'/30'
Rear 15' 15' 0' 0'
10' (b) 15' (b)
Garage Entrance (d) (d) (e) (e)
Maximum Building Height 35' 45' 60' 60'
Maximum Lot Coverage(g) 80% 80% 100% 85%
Minimum Landscaped Area (i) 20% of site area 20%of site area 0%of site 15%of site
area area
Housing Mix
Required housing types as listed under < 16 units in development: 1 housing type NA NA
Residential in Table 3.
16--40 units in development: 2 housing types
EXHIBIT "A"
Table 5
TOD Corridor Zoning Standards
Standard Zone Districts
LMR MMR EC GC
>40 units in development: 3 or more housing
types(plus approved master plan).
NA--Not applicable
Notes:
(a) The five-foot minimum also applies to the perimeter of the attached unit development.
(b) Setback required when adjacent to a residential zone.
(c) Setback required is ten feet minimum between units when using zero lot line configurations.
(d) Ten feet behind building facade facing street.
(e) Garage entrance shall not protrude beyond the face of the building.
(f) Net acre equals the area remaining after deducting environmental lands, exclusive employment areas,exclusive
civic areas and right-of-way.
(g) Lot coverage refers to all impervious surfaces, including buildings and paved surfacing.
(h) Parking lot landscaping and screening requirements still apply.
(i) Landscaped area shall include living ground cover, shrubs,trees, and decorative landscaping material such as
bark, mulch or gravel. No pavement or other impervious surfaces are permitted except for pedestrian pathways and
seating areas.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.812
A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY
COUNCIL TO AMEND TO THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE,CHAPTER
17.08.010 DEFINITIONS,SPECIFIC,DEFINING THE TERM "CONGREGATE HOUSING";
17.64.040,OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS,TABLE 17.64.02A ADJUSTING
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CONGREGATE HOUSING, 17.65.050 ZONING
REGULATIONS,TOD DISTRICT,TABLES 1 THROUGH 5,AND 17.65.070 ZONING
REGULATIONS,TOD CORRIDOR,TABLES 1 THROUGH 5,TO DELETE THE TERM
"SENIOR HOUSING" AND REPLACE THE TERM "SENIOR HOUSING" WITH THE
TERM "CONGREGATE HOUSING"
FILE NO. 14022
Applicant: City of Central Point;
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission has reviewed the above noted amendments(`Amendments")
to the Zoning Ordinance determined necessary to clarify and update regulations relative to senior
housing; and
WHEREAS,the Amendments as proposed do not alter regulations, or preclude senior housing, but
only serves to replace the term "senior housing"with the term "congregate housing"and update
parking standards related to senior housing.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED,that the City of Central Point Planning Commission,by
this Resolution No. 812. does recommend that the City Council amend the Central Point Municipal
Code.Chapter 17.08 .010 Definitions. Specific, defining the term "Congregate Housing"; 17.64.040,
Off-Street Parking Requirements. Table 17.64.02A adjusting parking requirements for Congregate
Housing, 17.65.050 Zoning Regulations, TOD District, Tables 1 through 5.and 17.65.070 Zoning
Regulations,TOD Corridor. Tables 1 through 5,to delete the term "Senior Housing" and replace the
term "Senior Housing" with the term "Congregate(Senior) Housing". This decision is based on the
Staff Report dated January 6, 2015 attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6th day
of January 2015.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 6`h day of January 2015.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 812(01-06-2015)
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO.813 FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO CHANGE APPROXIMATELY 5 ACRES OF LAND IN CITY CORE AREA DESIGNATED LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CIVIC TO REFLECT ACTUAL LAND USES AS A PARK,A PARK SERVICE YARD
AND A CITY CORPORATION YARD
City of Central Point, Oregon CENTRAL Community Development
140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 POINT
Tom Humphrey,AICP
541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 Community Development Director
www.centralpointoregon.gov
STAFF REPORT
January 6, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14020
Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan(map)Amendment and Zoning(map)Amendment application
from Residential Low Density to Civic and from R-1-6 and Park to Civic zoning for approximately five
(5) acres located east of South Fourth Street, north of Bush Street and South of Ash Street. The Project
Site is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S2W 11 BA, Tax Lot 2200 and
37S2W11BB,Tax Lots 6300, 8200, 8300 and 8301. Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
During the course of evaluating the above referenced properties as the site for a prospective
Community Center and/or other uses,it came to City staff's attention that the zoning would not only
restrict the development of such uses but that the zoning and land use designations were inconsistent
with one another. The Parks maintenance yard is a legally non-conforming use in `Park' zoning and
the Public Works maintenance yard is a legally non-conforming use in R-1-6, Residential Single
Family zoning. Should these uses continue or should the properties be redeveloped for a use like a
Community Center, the `Civic' zoning would be more compatible and appropriate.
ISSUES & NOTES:
There are 4 issues/Notes relative to this application as follows:
1. Zoning Map and Zoning Code Text Amendments, CPMC Chapter 17.10. This municipal
code section provides standards and procedures for major and minor amendments to the
Central Point city zoning map. In this case, the application was initiated by the City
for property in its ownership and the action is considered a `minor' amendment and a
Type III process. The amendment should be based on the following criteria; 1) its
consistency with the City's Comprehensive Plan, 2) findings demonstrating that
adequate public services and transportation networks will serve the property and 3)
compliance with the State's Transportation Planning Rule.
2. Comprehensive Plan Compliance. Approval of the proposed zone change must be found
consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Plan Map. If the Comprehensive
Plan designation is changed to Civic on the five lots in question, then Tax Lot 2200 would
immediately be compliant(the skate park is already zoned civic)and the other four lots will
become compliant when they are rezoned from R-1-6 and Park to a `Civic' zoning(refer to
Attachment A).
3. Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning. The proposed land use
designation to the west is School District#6 property(CPE and District Administration)
which is already designated `Civic' in the City's Comprehensive Plan Map. Land to the
north, south and east is designated residential and is typically compatible with schools,
churches,parks and other public uses.
4. Transportation Planning Rule(TPR) Compliance, OAR 660-012-0060. Criteria for TPR
compliance is addressed in the City findings (Attachment B)demonstrating adequate public
services and transportation networks. In this case, Plan Amendments will legitimize existing
uses on the properties involved and which are already receiving public services and are part
of a transportation network. Public facilities master plans identify various future public
improvements including the replacement of a traffic signal at Fourth and Pine Streets.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:
Although a recommendation of a decision to approve a minor amendment may include
conditions, staff has not identified the need to impose any conditions at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment"A"—Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps
Attachment "B"—Planning Department's Findings
Attachment"C"—Resolution No. 813
ACTION:
Open public hearing and consider the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning maps, close public hearing and 1)recommend approval to the City Council; 2)
recommend approval with revisions; or 3) deny the application.
RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend approval or Resolution No. 813. Per the Staff Report dated January 6, 2015 and
supported by Findings of Fact.
ATTACHMENT " A "
CENTRAL
POINT
r
'k r ASHLEY PL
1
CEDAR ST
t.3)
, Current Designation
�
Residential Low Density(R-L) o
()l l■(7l /:I
1'C3U\('J , ,.
1 11 /4/ l�l'll;l�Y , BUSH ST
i"
r
,:.'e a F;4 ,.
" ;.4-T t ° GRAND AVE
y
Legend
V f V UGB
Mixed Use East Side TOD Residential Commericial Industrial Civic and O Space
TOD Corridor Civic*(C) Very Low Density
al Neighborhood Convenience Center Light Parks and pen Open Space
IN TOD District Low Mix*(LMR) Low Density Mi Tourist and Office Professional General Civic
Medium Mix*(MMR) Medium Density ai Thoroughfare Commercial
• High Density
*All development with the ETOD subject to special conditions per CPMC Section 17.65.25(A),ETOD Trip Cap.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Last Updated.Ord.No.1960 Aug.2012 2008_20 Z 0
Ord.No.1971 May 2013 8 J
This map is intended for graphic display and planning purposes only.
Current UGB Limits and Tax Parcels are represented on this map.
Comp Plan200L M2013
MHO 26 APRIL 2013
A I'T ACHMENT " "
CENTRAL
POINT
ASHLEY PL
CEDAR ST
I i(', Ilil(-I I (1V'l I)( II: 1)11 (� :j ) i„
((r j"
(;I /\)11∎41
BUSH ST
! 11 MI l�llhl;�'
•
•
11
-0211 V gi {p;g _ a
°M9y `95'�VFgp tnrq,T '�
i•" Tp� 1
� f
't � GRAND AVE
Mixed Use East Side TOD Residential Commericial Industrial Civic and Open Space
TOD Corridor Civic*(C) Very Low Density NI Neighborhood Convenience Center Light ME Parks and Open Space
TOD District Low Mix*(LMR) Low Density MI Tourist and Office Professional MI General r Civic
Medium Mix*(MMR) A Medium Density • Thoroughfare Commercial
Iii High Density
'All development with the ETOD subject to special conditions per CPMC Section 17.65.25(A),ETOD Trip Cap.
Comprehensive Land Use Plan
Last Updated'Ord.No.1960 Aug.2012 2008-2030
Ord.No.1971 May 2013 l7
This map is intended for graphic display and planning purposes only.
Current UGB Limits and Tax Parcels are represented on this map,
Comp_Plan_2008 M2013
MHO 26 APRIL 2013
1-1 r , l'-'1%.0" !IIIVILAV I ..—.—:.---1........--
A c 1
PU
1p1;\' W IlliPPr#
, , , .. \--I:--- '.. :'..ci-„-...-:,,,,,,::•-,.:-;.: '-_.7-,,,,,r,,ill-,,:- ,',,,,,,?:k",;,,:i.,;1,5, ,,,,
' A
. .
, . .
. ..„, ,..,, .. , •-■. ., „ ,,,,,,,
,,, ,,, ,,, •, ,,,-. - . . ,.! , - — . ,,...,. ,,.. .., ,
' DAR ST
„,fr(14::;:.il:'":i-i!..::TA;M;A.--:--:;:::ts",..,,-!:'j;.:;i4i'&-,,
,,,(:',..i:''1,1414.;
ii.,
—I
Lii
;A,:44-'41:ii!'---,t-- -,ii..;„;::,:j41,,,, :',,1„,,Aio,4,4,-.,li.„-..4,47. ,i,,,y,::,1
,_ 1,r-vc.-41) . ,;;;Iry.:4,
-..,-.-..,,,
-,..',- '1.I 4. ' .. .1 ..,-.c';';'4,",,,,,% ,
CI) .3i. :'
4 J - .--, t4,..:4z.i.
,,,„..„,„,".1,;,•V,,
'''''''il•'I 1—'11:7,// /Y:4' 4 i;'..-'4,1,,,
Ct r•-,+:','"3:;'.f;-'0., '''' '
'''''...- ''''..-'''':•:::':‘:::4.-Z.14:11.:".t ,J4',,,,..i:..4.r,,,,,-,:4-,..?7,, ,,,,';,4,;.:T9.}.0,, ,,,,,_,,,,.:,,
tr.
,5,;11,- f,7, y„,-,,*--..-.;
-,..._.--.2,,,,t1L:,_
..,::,,,,,A;',:t-f,.: •=,,,-,:,:-AFI-zit4,1--42.140,,,Ii.Aft.A.,7,,,,,,i,-;: t7,-.
(: ::;;:::;.2-',;:,,,,-,,,,,,,, ,,,i,V ....,ititi-;.---.i'ilifl.:,7'..,.:'''::-.Vii4'-::140.",•••-
•\4..,,,„:',.:--... ,-.'r141,-;,.:*6,....,„-„,A -,.--.,,-.-,,,,-, ..„v,,, ,,,,,„,,,,,. :,..:, r,,,,,,
-,.--,,5--, .',-.44,--., .-*:4,-.., t-..t.i. •„--.,,,,,,,,,P..4,;4,41,----.--.:2, ,.,.4,. .,..i.-
....k,-.v.--,,,,,,*,,g,,,• 4::: -:,-1'.'1,4,,,X,4','','-
\S-.4' . , , ,4file-,.,, 44.-42,"
\:::. ''''':::;.?*,..,:T,..-F'`i; -NXMI:::'
, '''''''.;-=',A4. :',,?*'tfiiie.;,"'-'4;-',.':....!:r..•P''rr' -.--'':-.1'k..:?,:41,-
\ ,
GRAN D AV
...
--.' 7- '7,7 A' '74-7' --7—t,, 7,..,„_
—
- ,
,
„,
,,„-,
.,* , ,
,,
,,, , . , „.„.„,, ., ,, ., ,,,,, ,
4,, ,,
, , ,
, ,„ ,.
,,,., d
A A
..,, ” j .J,
. , ., A J-. , A
, j
. ,, . . ,,„. .j, ,„„,...
1 .,.77--
[
04111li Legend W+E
S
CENTRAL 0 0 008 0016 0 020 0 032
MII=Illp
POINT ,- ..R.Medium Mix Reselenbal 1700) M lee
( OS=Open Space(TOO) 0 City nall,PalIce Parks
Ws
Zoning Map
41.• R 3=Mueple Family Residential Fire
.0). ,
' Com(TOO) R-2=Two-Family Residential - TOO Conidor Population 17,235
impt EC=Employment Commerce)(TOO) -- RI-B SF Residential-6.000 00 DiotrIct
Jeckeox County Srriartrnep ( ) GC=General Commercial(TOO) -Some
r—N,,.........,
R 1 8=SF Residential-8800 Highway 08
purpoo.soiy Sarnep.rcearncIrrac,rod.irIranr.p 8Mb High Mix ResidentieliCommercal(TOO) ' Or-no SF Reslaentrel-ID 000 .f\_e-'...= streams
:;:f-tin:0r.ra mr0 LMR Low Mix Residential(TOO) R L Low Density Residential Railroad
ATTACHMENT " __"
,
1
!IIIPI lIP
IIPPPP
1
111
•
i
I
• .00 OS ) ___L_
•
A aia-
Ilk in 0
Oi . (.6
—
-,
•
--
Parks&°port Space(OS)
1.--
,-- ,
to
c ,
\ .
Civic(C) —I
.1
\\ „.
\
,
I— .--.
\ ,
, CENTRAL ,
, o'
, POINT
....
\ ELEMENTARY •
........____
.-
1
•
\
a-
\ l',,
G I
— I
l t \N
I
A . N
W+E
CENTRAL
0 015 0 0225 0 03
Legend 0 0 0075 cleemo==e■
POINT0, B iG Boar Cieei Sieenoai Miles
411, Illt
laGay Hall/Police Fil----) Parks
Zoning Map c-E)
r-, C..-' MOIR=kW am".R.dent al ITO.
Dii=Open Space(TOD) SIND Fite Departroant 5'kEE es*
4E ss, UGB
CD ,N=Ne obliortiood Coininemal ISO R: M2OOFROOFKSS TOD Corridor 4
Population 17,235 S.F # •40 ,.,.„,,,,
••••TOD DmIpc1
Source
0110 E..Ernoloorneoi Cornroeii,i0171 C.) i - Re■o.nt al 0 000
Gay of Genesi Po.Plantong Department A t SF
Jaokeon County Sniernoop
CD GC Gene=a Comm.c a TOO/ ED R..2.o0 .
Penni,re Olkiiitlitti for graphic tlatplay and fatelenci
purposes only Some pare..are not monsoon..rn this map C) CM /11/%0•01i. Sireams
WO 79 OM 7012
orryzorkng 74x18 mil CD ,000 LOF 20,000 0$FFOL(TD
ooio I Railroad
ATTACHMENT " "
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
File No.: 14020
A
Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission
Consideration of a Comprehensive Plan (Map) and Zone Change (Map) Amendment Application
on approximately five (5) acres located east of South Fourth Street, north of Bush Street and
South of Ash Street. The property is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S2W
11BA, Tax Lot 2200 and 37S2W11BB, Tax Lots 6300, 8200, 8300 and 8301.
Applicant: ) Findings of Fact
City of Central Point, Oregon ) and
Conclusion of Law
PART 1
INTRODUCTION
It is requested that the above referenced tax lots be redesignated and rezoned to a Civic use to reflect
current land use activities and to minimize land use limitations for future uses contemplated by the City.
These findings have been prepared with the understanding that both the Comprehensive Plan (Map) and
Zoning Map will be changed to become consistent with one another.
The zone change request is a quasi-judicial map amendment, which is processed using Type III
application procedures. Type III procedures set forth in Section 17.05.400 provide the basis for
decisions upon standards and criteria in the development code and the comprehensive plan, when
appropriate.
Applicable development code criteria for this Application include:
1. Statewide Planning Goals
2. Comprehensive Plan
3. State Transportation Planning Rule
4. CPMC, Chapter 17.10
Findings will be presented in four(4) parts addressing the requirements of Section 17.05.300 as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Statewide Planning Goals
3. Comprehensive Plan
4. Summary Conclusion
PART 2
STATEWIDE PLANNING GOALS
A finding of consistency with the applicable statewide planning goals is generally reserved for major
amendments only (reference CPMC, Chapter 17.10.400 Approval criteria).
ATTACHMENT " "
Finding: The proposed Comprehensive Plan (Map) designation and zone change constitute a
minor amendment and are consequently not subject to the Statewide Planning Goals. The Oregon
Department of Land Conservation and Development was notified and has chosen not to
comment on this amendment.
Conclusion: Consistent with Statewide Planning Goals.
PART 3
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map currently designates five acres of land as Low Density
Residential this is being used for Civic purposes (City Corporation Yard, Parks Maintenance Yard,
Skate Park and soccer field). The Civic land use designation will legitimize these legal non-conforming
uses and be more consistent with plans that the City has discussed relative to a Community Center.
Finding: The project site consists of approximately five (5) acres of Low Density Residential
land being used for various civic purposes. The Plan Amendment and Zone Change to Civic uses
will make legal non-conforming uses, permitted uses and will also be more compatible with long
range plans the City has discussed relative to other community-related uses.
Conclusion: Consistent.
PART 4
STATEWIDE TRANSPORTATION RULE
Section 660-012-0060(1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility,
the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g.
level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation,facility if it would:
a) Change the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation,facility;
b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
c)As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system
plan:
(A)Allow types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that are
inconsistent with the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
.facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility that is
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
ATTACHMENT " "
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(a): The proposed plan amendment and zone change does not change
the functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility. The proposed zone
change may increase Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation over time, as shown in Table 1. The
current trips being generated by the City-related uses provide the minimum ADT while a heavier
use(i.e. a community center or school campus)provide the maximum ADT. The proposed zone
change will not cause any changes to the functional classification of any existing or planned
transportation facilities.
Table 1. Proposed Zone Change Impact to Average Daily Trips
Zoning Site Acreage Min Density Min Units Min ADT Max Density Min Units Max ADT
Civic 5.00 N/A N/A 389.5 N/A 60K GFA 1649.4
R-1-6 5.00 4 20.0 190.4 6 30.0 285.6
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(a): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(b): The proposed plan amendment and zone change could increase
the ADTs over time (Table 1). However, the proposed amendments will not cause a change to
standards implementing the City's transportation system.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(b): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A): The proposed plan amendment and zone change will not cause
an increase in land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that would be inconsistent
with the City's functional street classification system for existing and planned transportation
facilities. As shown in Table 1, the proposed changes may increase ADTs over time but not
significantly more than those non-conforming uses already generating trips.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(c)(A): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B): The proposed plan amendment and zone change may result in a
gradual increase in ADTs over time and as property redevelops as demonstrated in Table 1. The
proposed zone change will not reduce the performance of any existing or planned transportation
facilities below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the Master Plan, or
in the City's Transportation System Plan.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(c)(B): No significant affect.
Finding 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): The proposed plan amendment and zone change will not cause
the worsening of an existing or planned transportation facility that is otherwise projected to
perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the Master Plan or
Comprehensive Plan. Captital improvements are scheduled in the City's TSP that are anticipated
to mitigate the impacts of redevelopment in this sector of the community.
Conclusion 660-012-0060(1)(c)(C): No significant affect.
ATTACHMENT ". 1? ,"
PART 5
ZONING ORDINANCE
17.10.300 Quasi-judicial amendments.
A. Applicability of Quasi-Judicial Amendments. Quasi-judicial amendments are those that involve
the application of adopted policy to a specific development application or code revision, and not the
adoption of new policy (i.e., through legislative decisions). Quasi-judicial zoning map amendments
shall follow the Type III procedure, as governed by Section 17.05.400, using standards of approval in
subsection B of this section. The approval authority shall be as follows:
1. The planning commission shall review and recommend land use district map changes that do
not involve comprehensive plan map amendments;
2. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council on an application
for a comprehensive plan map amendment. The city council shall decide such applications; and
3. The planning commission shall make a recommendation to the city council on a land use
district change application that also involves a comprehensive plan map amendment
application. The city council shall decide both applications.
Finding 17.10.300(A): A plan amendment and zone change application has been submitted to
redesignate five acres from Low Density Residential to Civic and to rezone R-1-6, SF
Residential to Civic District. The proposal will be considered by the planning commission and a
recommendation will be made to the City Council for final decision.
Conclusion 17.10.300(A): Consistent.
B. Criteria for Quasi-Judicial Amendments. A recommendation or a decision to approve, approve
with conditions or to deny an application for a quasi-judicial amendment shall be based on all of the
following criteria:
1. Approval of the request is consistent with the applicable statewide planning goals;
Finding 17.10.300(B)(1): See Part 2, Statewide Planning Goals findings and conclusions.
Conclusion 17.10.300(B)(1): Consistent
2. Approval of the request is consistent with the Central Point comprehensive plan;
Finding 17.10.300(8)(2): See Part 3, Comprehensive Plan findings and conditions.
Conclusion 17.10.300(B)(2): Consistent.
3. The property and affected area is presently provided with adequate public facilities, services and
transportation networks to support the use, or such facilities, services and transportation
networks are planned to be provided in the planning period; and
Finding 17.10.300(B)(3): Public facilities, services and transportation networks have been
established pursuant to the City's TSP and are sufficient to serve the allowable uses. The
proposal will not significantly increase the demand on public facilities over the current uses.
ATTACHMENT " "
Conclusion 17.10.300(B)(3): Consistent.
4. The change is in the public interest with regard to neighborhood or community conditions, or
corrects a mistake or inconsistency in the comprehensive plan or land use district map regarding
the property which is the subject of the application.
Finding 17.10.300(B)(4): The proposed plan amendment and zone change are consistent with
Strategic Planning goals, are in the interest of the community, are compatible with surrounding
land uses and correct inconsistencies in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning maps.
Conclusion 17.10.300(B)(4): Consistent.
17.10.600 Transportation planning rule compliance.
Section 660-012-0060(1) Where an amendment to a functional plan, an acknowledged comprehensive
plan, or a land use regulation would significantly affect an existing or planned transportation facility,
the local government shall put in place measures as provided in section (2) of this rule to assure that
allowed land uses are consistent with the identified function, capacity, and performance standards (e.g.
level of service, volume to capacity ratio, etc.) of the facility. A plan or land use regulation amendment
significantly affects a transportation facility if it would:
a) Change the.functional classification of an existing or planned transportation facility;
b) Change standards implementing a functional classification system; or
c)As measured at the end of the planning period identified in the adopted transportation system
plan:
(A)Allow types or levels of land uses that would result in levels of travel or access that are
inconsistent with the.functional classification of an existing or planned transportation
facility;
(B) Reduce the performance of an existing or planned transportation facility below the
minimum acceptable performance standard identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan; or
(C) Worsen the performance of an existing or planned transportation_facility that is
otherwise projected to perform below the minimum acceptable performance standard
identified in the TSP or comprehensive plan.
Finding 17.10.600(1): See Part 4, Statewide Transportation Planning Rule findings and
conclusions.
Conclusion: Consistent.
Summary Conclusion: As evidenced in findings and conclusions, the proposed plan amendment and
zone change are consistent with applicable standards and criteria in the Central Point Municipal Code,
including the Statewide Planning Goals (where applicable), Comprehensive Plan, and Statewide
Transportation Planning Rule.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 813
A RESOLUTION FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE COMPRHENSIVE PLAN (MAP)
AMENDMENT AND REZONING OF APROXIMATELY FIVE (5) ACRES EAST OF
SOUTH FOURTH STREET BETWEEN BUSH AND ASH STREETS FROM LOW
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO CIVIC
FILE NO. 14020
Applicant: City of Central Point;
WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan (Map) designation and zone change
constitute a minor amendment; and
WHEREAS, Section 17.50.400 of the municipal code dictates that the City Planning
Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council on an application for
a comprehensive plan map amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Plan Amendment and Zone Change from Residential to Civic uses
will make existing legal non-conforming uses, permitted uses in the zone and will
also be more compatible with long range plans the City has discussed relative to
other community-related uses; and
WHEREAS, As evidenced in findings and conclusions, the proposed plan
amendment and zone change are consistent with applicable standards and criteria in
the Central Point Municipal Code, including the Statewide Planning Goals (where
applicable), the Comprehensive Plan, and Statewide Transportation Planning Rule.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning
Commission, by this Resolution No. 813, does recommend that the City Council approve the
Comprehensive Plan (Map) amendment and zone change from Low Density Residential to
Civic. This decision is based on the Staff Report dated January 6, 2015 attached hereto by
reference and incorporated herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this
6th day of January, 2015.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 6th day of January, 2015
Planning Commission Resolution No. 813 (01/06/2015)
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO.814 FORWARDING A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TO THE
CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE A CONCEPTUAL LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR CP-1B
(TOLO),AN URBAN RESERVE AREA OF CENTRAL POINT
Planning Department
STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Tom Humphrey,AICP,
POINTCommunity Development Director
STAFF REPORT
January 6, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14009
Open and continue public hearing for a Conceptual Land Use and Transportation Plan for Urban Reserve Area CP-1 B;
Applicant: City of Central Point.
STAFF SOURCE:
Tom Humphrey AICP, Community Development Director
BACKGROUND:
The City's Regional Plan Element includes a provision that prior to expansion of the urban growth boundary into an urban
reserve area it is necessary to adopt conceptual land use and transportation plans for the affected urban reserve. A second
urban growth boundary application has been submitted to Jackson County on behalf of Cardmore Trucking that includes
50 acres of CP-1 B. The consultant for the applicant has prepared a rudimentary conceptual plan for their application but
the City has initiated its own(refer to attachments).
City staff introduced a rough draft of the CP-1 B conceptual plan at the Planning Commission meeting in November and is
distributing this document for public review and comment. Revisions are still being made to the Concept Plan in
anticipation of final Planning Commission review in February. In the meantime, it is recommended that the Commission
take preliminary public testimony in January and then continue the hearing to their meeting in February.
ISSUES:
Public Comment on the CP-1 B Conceptual Plan will be received at the Citizen Advisory Committee(CAC) next week
and then again at the Planning Commission meeting in February. Pending land owner and CAC input, the Planning
Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council next month.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment"A—CP-1 B Concept Plan Maps"
ACTION:
Open Public Hearing and invite those who may not be able to attend in February to comment on the City's
Concept Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
Continue public hearing to next regular Planning Commission meeting in February.
Page 1 of 1
CENTRAL
POINT
,,,,
r_ v __ , /
,'
,,
amana a
1
e4p..A.,.,\\.,.. c
V, \
4. # ..-...„,atiar. ___11 i l
iiiiihrfri-, Ntiir'.7''''''' ,2„..1 ' ' (----\ :
,„,,,,ii
)
r
f
•
MPS
...Avammirerw,i5
_._ Id
'Alb i
o
.��
-,� , �C 4
�� �.
:! ' II ri ill EL „„„,,,,,m, .. ..., ,„ . _„,,,,,
in 4 S a
k_ ss .
..
...„..........,..„ \ , ,„ ..10,s
isle.
limn - i'' 'l `,
mot= r
7H,,,- i �\ f o
N11101111 lin III
E..:i
_rim /, n
6
...„
r- -
____L
_ _. .
I
i
1 \
____.7,,, ...
i
f___
, ...
N r', __
Figure 2. Concept Plan
A
Legend Tolo Area (CP-1B)
AREA -'-'--" Cuss 2 RiiOetl PROPOSED ROAD
ZONE_TYPE
r S __ _ - SUILI1f • PROPOSED LOOP ROAD _OPEN SPACE
IliConceptual Land Use Plan V4Akill
...........................mitou
enMI
i
II -- '- KIRTLAND:RD IIIII
O
11 NI
t'%k&___-
_, . ..., , . . ,. ,., ; ! i ,.„. f_
Concept Dean Creek Road
( .C "B Industrial ' I e Alignment Per TAMP .i, H _ ; A _______
I ,21 . : ,, : .
. , 1 i_, ;
._ .-4'- -1 , ' .1 - , ' ‘s INiTERS;TATEi51NB--_ _ i i '_ f'Po'"�-�`tt
I 111111111 wow _ \\:,,,,,,,,h, a - "--( _ Close Access
lail i� 11•16 j � -_ Per TAMP
i.amJR[ nmeuenAMP■ ncept Local Road , .,,0\`\i ■�
11 lim -P4
waism
wow
_` O111 1 11 11
•. �•.. mNME ' Parkland
n -■ CP-4D
Legend ■Grill .i.
Proposed General Industrial Comp Plan Ib4, 1
Open Space/Parkland • ■ 44)1)4•
---... IAMP Concept Alignment , - se
Q Subject Lots ♦ _
4 Central Point Urban Growth Boundary* i I I y un■■ --. Sry
°IR 9 •CP.�1.0 11.
' ; Urban Reserve ii_ i ono I.
SCENIC�AV -
Tax Lots 1 + Kti . ,�„R "'
*UGB Pending Greenway CP-4D Amendment 1 I : %,...$
.o'.af:
1
0 1,000 2,000 Feet ; eins "'' -
- , - �U-I�lunu I
s 1 _ .n"ff mE n
12-26-2013 ■ alt;�i�� .4` uC U
CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 815 AUTHORIZING TESTING LABORATORIES AS A SIMILAR AND
COMPATIBLE USE WITHIN THE C-2(M),C-5 AND M-1 ZONING DISTRICTS
Planning Department
STAFF REPORT CENTRAL Tom Humphrey,AICP,
POINTCommunity Development Director
STAFF REPORT
January 6, 2015
AGENDA ITEM: File No. 14025
Consideration of Resolution No. 815 authorizing Testing Laboratories as a similar and compatible use within the C-2(M),
C-5, and M-1 zoning district; Applicant: Kenevir Research.
STAFF SOURCE:
Don Burt, AICP
BACKGROUND:
The City has recently received a request(Attachment"A")to operate a testing laboratory (Proposed Use)within the C-
2(M),C-5, and M-1 zoning districts. The products tested are herbal medicines, vitamins, and nutraceutical products. It
should also be noted that one product to be tested is cannabis. The Proposed Use receives small quantities of product to be
tested for mold, insecticides, etc. and reports on the purity of the product. Because of the nature of one of the products
tested(cannabis)the Applicant and staff want to be very transparent in addressing the question of"similarity".
Testing laboratories are not specifically named as a permitted use in the C-2(M),C-5, and M-1 districts. The M-1 district
does permit engineering/research laboratories, but not specifically testing laboratories, which are different. Under Section
17.60.140 the Planning Commission has the authority to allow similar uses, subject to making findings per Section
17.40.140(A)(1-4).
For purposes of determining use similarity the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)will be used as a
reference. The NAICS is used by businesses and governments throughout Canada, Mexico and the United States to
classify business establishments according to type of economic activity. The NAICS uses a six-digit coding system to
classify all economic activity. Establishments using similar raw material inputs, capital equipment, and labor, and doing
similar things in similar ways are classified together.
As noted in Attachment"A"the Proposed Use is classified in the NAICS as a Testing Laboratory (54138)and defined as:
"Establishments primarily engaged in performing physical, chemical, and other analytical testing
services, such as acoustics or vibration testing, assaying, biological testing(except medical and
veterinary), calibration testing, electrical and electronic testing, geotechnical testing, mechanical testing,
nondestructive testing, or thermal testing. The testing may occur in a laboratory or on-site. "
For purposes of this report use similarity will be determined based on the Subsector(3 digit)classification, 541
Professional, Scientific& Technical Services. The NAICS defines this subsector as follows:
"Industries in the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services subsector group establishments
engaged in processes where human capital is the major input. These establishments make available the
knowledge and skills of their employees, often on an assignment basis, where an individual or team is
responsible for the delivery of services to the client. The individual industries of this subsector are defined
on the basis of the particular expertise and training of the services provider.
The distinguishing feature of the Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services subsector is the fact that
Page 1 of 5
most of the industries grouped in it have production processes that are almost wholly dependent on
worker skills. In most of these industries, equipment and materials are not of major importance, unlike
health care,for example, where "high tech"machines and materials are important collaborating inputs to
labor skills in the production of health care. Thus, the establishments classified in this subsector sell
expertise. Much of the expertise requires degrees, though not in every case."
Table 1 illustrates the coding used by the NAICS to classify Testing Laboratories.
Table 1
Sector Subsector Industry NAICS Industry Description
Indust
54 Professional, Scientific& Technical Services
541 Professional, Scientific & Technical Services
5413 Architectural, En_ineerin: &Related
54138 Testin_ Laborator
The 54138 classification is within the Professional, Scientific& Technical Services sector and includes
laboratories/services for such uses as Food Testing, Biological (except medical, veterinary)Testing, Soil Testing,
Electrical Testing, Mechanical Testing, Product Testing, etc. Medical related industries are classified in the 62 Sector—
Health Care and Social Services.
ISSUES:
It has been noted that one of the products the Applicant proposes to test is cannabis the findings presented in this Staff
Report are limited to the use Testing Laboratories. The products tested are not a consideration.
In identifying permitted uses the Zoning Ordinance is very general, and quite specific. As an example in the C-2(M)and
C-5 districts Professional and Financial' uses are permitted. As written the reference to "Professional and Financial" uses
convey the meaning that all professional and financial uses are permitted. However, both zoning districts proceed to
identify a subcategory of uses within the"Professional and Financial"category referred to as"including" uses. The term
"including"is specific to the listed uses and is not presented in an explanatory "such as", or a delimiting"in addition to"
manner. Technically, not only are"Professional and Financial"uses allowed in the C-2(M)and C-5 districts, but also
hospitals, licensed health care facilities,professional medical offices, and medical services,clinics and laboratories, as
well as banks and similar financial institutions, real estate, insurance and similar offices, contractor's offices, and medical
services.
It appears that the intent may have been that the term "including"was meant to mean "such as". Section 17.60.140 adds
support to this interpretation in allowing that the"planning commission may rule that a use not specifically named in the
examples of allowed uses of a district shall he included among the allowed uses, if the use is()Pile same general type and
is similar to the permitted uses."This more restrictive interpretation will be used in preparing the findings presented in
this report.
The M-1 District is more specific in its listing of permitted uses. For purposes of determining"similarity"the closest use
within the M-1 district to the Proposed Use is"Scientific research or experimental development of materials, methods of
product(ion), including engineering and laboratory research4".
FINDINGS:
The Planning Commission, in responding to the"similar"use question is required to make four(4)findings. Those
findings and their conclusions are:
' CPMC 17.37.020(A)and 17.46.020(A)
2 CPMC 17.37.020(A)(1-4)
CPMC 17.46.020(A)(1-4)
4 CPMC 17.48.020(K)
Page 2 of 5
Finding 1. That the use is closely related to listed uses and can be shown to exist compatibly with those uses.
The NAICS classifies uses based on similarity in raw material inputs, similar capital equipment and labor,and doing
similar things in similar ways. The basis of the NAICS classification system is consistent with the purpose of Section
17.60.140 in addressing the issue of similar(closely related) uses. Therefore, if uses are within a designated NAICS
sector they are considered to be similar,and that similarity improves as the uses progress from sector to subsector to
industry classification.
The NAICS places Testing Laboratories in the Professional, Scientific&Technical Services subsector(541).
Consequently, uses within Sector 54 should be similar. Table 2 lists permitted uses within the C-2(M)and C-5
districts that have a NAICS 541 subsector classification. Within the C-2(M)district only Counseling Services are
considered similar,and then only if accessory to a primary use. In the C-5 district there are numerous uses that are
similar to the Proposed Use.
Table 2
Sector Subsector Industry Industry Description C-2(M) C-5
54 541 5412 Accounting& Bookkeeping Offices NA P
54 541 5411 Legal Services NA P
54 541 5413 Architectural & Engineering Services NA P
_ 54 541 5419 Professional Photo or Art Studios NA P
54 541 5419 Counseling Services P1 P
The M-5 district allows as a permitted use"Scientific research or experimental development of materials,methods of
product(ion), including engineering and laboratory uses"The NAICS classifies these uses as being in the Professional,
Scientific& Technical Services sector(54). Similar uses include in this category are:
541 712 Research and Development in the Physical,Engineering, and Life Sciences(except Biotechnology) -
This U.S. Industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in conducting research and experimental
development (except biotechnology research and experimental development) in the physical, engineering, and life
sciences, such as agriculture, electronics, environmental, biology, botany, computers, chemistry,food,fisheries,
forests, geology, health, mathematics, medicine, oceanography,pharmacy,physics, veterinary and other allied
subjects.
This classification includes research facilities and laboratories for such uses as Agricultural research and development
laboratories/services, Food research and development laboratories/services, Physical science research and development
laboratories/services, etc.
541711 Research and Development in Biotechnology- This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily
engaged in conducting biotechnology research and experimental development. Biotechnology research and
experimental development involves the study of the use of microorganisms and cellular and bio-molecular
processes to develop or alter living or non-living materials. This research and development in biotechnology may
result in development of new biotechnology processes or in prototypes of new or genetically-altered products that
may be reproduced, utilized, or implemented by various industries.
This classification includes research facilities and laboratories for such uses as Biotechnology research and development
laboratories/services in botany,Cloning research and experimental laboratories, Recombinant DNA research and
experimental development laboratories,etc.
Finding 1 also includes the need for a determination of"compatibility". As defined compatibility is the capability of living
or performing in harmonious, agreeable association with others. In general similar uses tend to be harmonious with other
similar uses. This is particularly true when the uses are conducted wholly within an enclosed environment. This is further
reinforced when the built environment is regulated by zoning standards for setbacks,coverage, parking/loading, etc.
5 CPMC 17.48.020(K)
Page 3 of 5
Conclusion 1: Within the C-2(M)district, with the exception of Counseling Services, uses within the
Professional, Scientific& Technical Services sector are not listed. The "including" uses are classified in other
sectors of the NA ICS. Therefore Testing Laboratories are not considered a similar use to permitted uses in the C-
2(M).
Within the C-5 district the list of"including" uses are all within the Professional, Scientific& Technical Services
sector.As such the Proposed Use is similar and closely related to other subsector 541 uses permitted in the C-5
district. Therefore Testing Laboratories are considered a similar use to permitted uses in the C-5 district.
Within the M-1 district the"Scientific research or experimental development of materials, methods of
product(ion), including engineering and laboratory use" is within the Professional, Scientific& Technical
Services sector and as such the Proposed Use is similar and closely related to other subsector 541 uses permitted
in the C-5 district. Therefore Testing Laboratories are considered a similar use to permitted uses in the M-1
district.
Finding 2. That the use was not anticipated or known to exist on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this
title,either because it involves products,services or activities not available in the community at the time or the use
involves new products,services or activities that are nonetheless similar to permitted uses in size, traffic, impact,
appearance and other attributes.
Testing laboratories have been in existence prior to adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Further,there is no record of
testing laboratories being intentionally excluded from the Zoning Ordinance. Consequently, the only rational
conclusion is that testing laboratories,as a use, were not anticipated at the time the Zoning Ordinance was prepared.
Conclusion 2: Testing Laboratories, as a use, were not anticipated at the time the Zoning Ordinance was adopted,
and therefore qualify for consideration as a similar use per CPMC 17.60.140.
Finding 3. That the use is treated under local,state, or national codes or rules in the same manner as permitted
uses. Except that these codes or rules shall not include land use or zoning regulations.
The Proposed Use(Testing Laboratories)will be subject to all local, state, and national code requirements that apply
to similar uses in the City. This includes complies to local, state, and federal laws regulating the processing of
controlled substances.
Conclusion 3: The Proposed Use will be subject to all local, state.and national code requirements that apply to
similar uses in the City.
Finding 4. That the use is consistent with the purpose of the district and the comprehensive plan map and policies.
The purpose of the C-2(M)district is". . . to assure that adequate medical cure will be available to the residents of
Central Point and enhance Central Point's attractiveness as a locution for private medical practices and other health
facilities, both public and private, that may he directly or indirectly related to hospital-type activities." in Finding 1 it
was concluded that the Proposed Use was not similar to the permitted uses in the C-2(M)district,and as such is not
consistent with the purpose of the C-2(M)district. This is further supported by the finding that uses consistent with
the purpose of the C-2(M)district have an NA ICS classification of 62—Health Care and Social Services.
The purpose of the C-5 district is ". . . to provide for commercial and business uses that are most appropriately
located along or near major highways or thoroughfares, and are largely dependent upon highway visibility and easy
vehicular access". Not all uses permitted in the C-5 district require,or are most appropriately located on,major
highways or thoroughfares, i.e. contractor's offices, insurance offices, medical laboratories, personal services,
physical fitness centers,auto/furniture upholstery, heating and air conditioning,etc.
The purpose of the M-1 district is ". . . to provide areas suitable.for the location of light industrial uses involved in
service, manufacturing or assembly activities and having high standards of operation of such character as to permit
their location and operation in close proximity to nonindustrial areas of the community." It has already been
determined that the Proposed Use is similar to the permitted use"Scientific research or experimental development of
materials, methods of product(ion), including engineering and laboratory use".
Page 4 of 5
Conclusion 4: Within the C-2(M)district testing laboratories are not consistent with the purpose of the C-2(M)
district.
Within the C-5 district testing laboratories, based on other permitted uses, can be consistent with the purpose of
the C-5 district.
Within the M-1 district testing laboratories are consistent with the purpose of the C-5 district.
Concluding Findings: The Proposed Use(testing laboratories) is found NOT to meet the findings for similar use in the
C-2(M)district. Within the C-5 district the Proposed Use can be found to generally meet all the findings for similarity and
can be considered a similar use. Within the M-1 district the Proposed Use meets all the findings for similarity and can be
considered a similar use.
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution No. 815
ACTION:
Consideration of Resolution No. 815
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 815 denying Testing Laboratories as a permitted use in the C-2(M)district and accepting Testing
Laboratories as a permitted use within the C-5 and M-1 districts.
Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT "A"
KENEVIR
f? S A RC�i
Don Burt,Planning Manager
Tom Humphrey, Community Development Manager
City of Central Point
140 S.3rd St.
Central Point,Oregon 97502
Tom and Don,
Thanks for all the helpful information you've shared.As briefly discussed,my partners and I are
interested in relocating my biotechnology business, Kenevir Research,to Central Point. Kenevir
Research is a full service natural product analytical laboratory. In addition to Quality Assurance testing
for mold, pathogens,pesticides and contaminants,we also assay active phytochemicals,vitamins and
nutritional information. Because of our trusted expertise in herbal medicines,vitamins and
neutraceutical products, Kenevir also serves Oregon Medical Marijuana Dispensaries,producers and
consumers with a full suite of laboratory services and technology consulting for cannabis and cannabis
businesses.At Kenevir Research,we recognize the importance of clean,effective cannabis medications
and seek to enable our customers and partners with application tailored high quality cannabis
analytics. I think it's important to state clearly that the lab storefront does not look like a"cannabis
business",nor does it buy/sell/trade/stock/distribute cannabis, nor does cannabis consumption occur
on site. The analytical arm of the business focusses on high quality analytical services delivered via
instrumentation.The R&D and consulting arm of the business provides biotechnology applications,
formulation,standardization,product and IP development and research support to legitimate cannabis
businesses and research entities. Industrially, Kenevir Research is primarily described by the following
NAICS Code:
541380 Testing Laboratories--This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
performing physical, chemical,and other analytical testing services,such as acoustics or
vibration testing,assaying, biological testing(except medical and veterinary), calibration
testing,electrical and electronic testing,geotechnical testing,mechanical testing,
nondestructive testing, or thermal testing.The testing may occur in a laboratory or on-site.
At this time,I would like to request CP's feedback on the possibility of two separate, but specific
proposals that could be submitted.One proposal would be for the present time frame,focused on
seeking approval to rent or lease a suitable laboratory and R&D facility in CP in early 2015.The second
proposal would be focused on a plan for future acquisition of real estate for development of a
dedicated laboratory and R&D facility.
KENEVIR
RESEARCH
Proposal#1 Draft:
Kenevir Research proposes to rent or lease a suitable laboratory and R&D facility in CP.The
search would be limited to C-5, C-2 and M-1 zoned sites including the TOD overlays on the C-
S/M-1 corridor along Hwy 99.Some candidate properties I have looked at so far are:620 S.
Front St.:476 N. Front St.
Proposal#2 Draft:
Kenevir Research,or its financial partners,proposes to acquire real estate within the Eastern
M-1 zone of CP for the purposes of developing a Kenevir Research cannabis biotechnology
facility.
I'd really like to thank you for your help and assistance in this process.We're really excited and looking
forward to working in this. Please consider these ideas to be the earliest form of draft proposals.We
would like to begin working with CP Planning on developing these plans to fruition.
Kindest regards,
,g r� Digitally signed by Anthony Smith
14?-1-42—'7' em crmAnthony Smith,o.Smkht,Scientific,
=U Ulc LL4ou,
may„ email=smlthapsmRhsdentlflc.nct,c=US
Date:2014.12.19 01:19:44-08'00'
Anthony Smith, Ph.D
Owner, Executive Scientist
Kenevir Research/Kenevir Technologies, LLC
KenevirReserch.com
anthony@kenevirtech.com
m.541-908-3618
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 815
A RESOLUTION APPROVING TESTING LABORATORIES AS A SIMILAR USE TO
OTHER USES IN THE C-5 AND M-1 ZONING DISTRICTS
FILE NO. 14025
Applicant: Kenevir Research
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has the authority to allow a use, not specifically named in the
examples of allowed uses of a district,to be permitted provided that the findings as set forth CPMC
17.60.140 Authorization for Similar Use,can be made; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2015 the Planning Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting,
considered allowing testing laboratories as a permitted use in the C-2(M), C-5, and M-1 districts; and
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED,that the City of Central Point Planning Commission,by
this Resolution No. 815, does hereby authorize Testing Laboratories as a permitted use in the C-5 and
M-1 zoning districts and denies authorization of Testing Laboratories in the C-2(M) district. This
decision is based on the Staff Report dated January 6, 2015 attached hereto by reference and
incorporated herein.
PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 6th day
of January 2015.
Planning Commission Chair
ATTEST:
City Representative
Approved by me this 6th day of January 2015.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 815 (01-06-2015)