Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - January 2, 2007F~'~;7ftC~,l O11`,i PI..,rAl~1~~~~a ~,~)1~~~~~~~d~~~ ~~~~',~~'A Ni;xt l'~lannin~; Con~rrr~ission R,e.sollttiot~ Rio. 7l4 I» l~~L;l~;'~"11~G CALLED T (~t~~~:l~ ~I» RtJ1€.,~, ~:A~~~. Connie ~-loczygcr73ba, Candy Fish, Damian Idiart, Chuck Pi]and, Wayne lZiggs, l7~rt 1~ec1~. and 'Ike Oliver TVt I~~I~~TTP,S A. Review and approval ofl~-ecembcr ~, ~QO6, Ylanr~ing Can~~alissiot~ h9itlttfcs Y~e A.~0.J~:PIJV~'a t"~s. 1 - 3 A. File loo. USQT 1. A public rncetin~; to cansidet~ a r~;~~uest f~~r eYtenszor~ ofV~'l~ritz; T lau~k __. L.states Planned Unit I:~evelapnrent. ~pplicaa~t: Ihrncan I)c~velt>l~r~~~;trt, lt~c, Pis. ~ - ~ i3. ~'xle No» d)~d)Gd). ,~~, public n~ceting to consider a request fir extension ofGray Court, F~7D, a Plannc;d l knit Developrrieirt. applicant: Jat~ ~. (Jra}~ ~~'~s. '~ - 3~ C. la,~l~ Noo O~di~~.. A public; lae~nixrg to consider ~r varla~~ce the ~0 (out a~lcess ~i ~~ndard by cre.ati ng an l ~ foa~t e.aset~ent access Ior <a second parcel to be crc~tcd b~ a minor land partition. The. subject hroperfiy- is iocatcd irr an I~-1-6, Residential dingle Fatnil~~ zoning district and is identified as ~~3 Piitvicti~ 11_ven~rc (Jackson Caunty Assessor's map 3'7S 2W llD, Tax Lot 300). :'~pplicantsa Calvin and Jcannitte Lanfear 1'~s. 34 - 53 I~. F ilc fro. U7020. A public hearing to consider aI>proval of a Minor L~u1d Pa1~;itiOrY far the ct~ation of a second lot located in an R-1-6, R~;sidential 5inle Fanxil~~ zoning disdt~ict. The address of the p~~c~I~crty subject to tl~i s p<~rtitzon is 683 Pittview %~vctritc (Jack:~on County ,Assessor's rnap 37 W l 1L7, 'l'ax f..ot 300). Applicants; Calvin. and. Js~anrti~~e Lanfear. Planning Cornmiasicrn Agenda ~- January 2, 20Q7 VII. MISCELLANEOUS Pis. 54 - 56 A. Lone Redwood Grove -City Arborist's report B. Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Update C. Regional Problem Solving Update VII. ADJOURNMENT Planning Commission Agenda -January 2, 2007 City of Central Point Planning Commissionz Minutes December 5, 2006 L MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Damian Idiart, Wayne Riggs, Pat Beck, and Mike Oliver were present. Commissioner Candy Fish was excused. Also in attendance were: Tozn Humphrey, Community Development Director; Connie Clune, Community Planner; Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician; Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator; and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES Damian Idiart made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 7, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Mike Oliver seconded the rrrotion. ROLL CALL: Idiart, yes; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, abstained. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES Don Pfaff, owner of property located at 4123 Sunland Avenue in Parkview Subdivision, came forward and stated that he had received a survey farm from the Planning Department of the City of Central Point, asking if he would like to participate in an annexation proceeding. Mr. Pfaff said that he has lived on his property for 40 years and does not want to see the subdivision become part of the City of Central Point, stating concerns about two-story houses and padlots. Az-vella Flowers of 2278 Taylor Road, came forward and said that she has been living on her property for 33 % years and is concerned that three houses would be put on the property which is the subject of an annexation proceeding located at 4050 Sunland Avenue. Mrs. Flowers stated further that she objects to an increase in traffzc, two-stony houses, and any changes in the neighborhood. Planning Conurrission Mirrrrtes December S, 2006 Page 2 Debbie Ratty, property owner at 4090 Sunland, came for-ward and asked if property would be allowed to develop like some of the newer areas nearby if azinexed into the City. Ms. Ratty inquired as to how many houses would be allowed on certain sized properties azad why the neighborhood had to change; that it was working fine right now. Community Development Director, Tom Humphrey, explained to znezxzbez-s of the audience that in the past, annexations were presented directly to the City Council, bypassing the Planning Coznznission altogether. The Planning Department is now starting to bring annexation proposals to the Planning Coznznission in an attempt to educate them and make them more knowledgeable about the proceeding. Mr. Humphrey proceeded to describe annexation criteria and some of the advazatages of annexation ~ generally speaking, zoning and services are better for development of property. Mr. Humphrey added that the reason for sending a survey out to residents in the area of the proposcd annexation was to determine if others wanted to participate and if so, this was a good time to find out. VI. BUSYNESS A. File No. 0701$. A public meeting to consider annexation of an approximate 19,899 square foot lot Iocated on the corner of Taylor Road and Sunland Avenue {~ackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 03CC, Tax Lot 1000), known as 4050 Sunland Avenue. Applicant: Amy M. Moore There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose except that Commissioner Damian Idiart declared a bias after asking if a majority of owners in a subdivision could prevent the annexation of one parcel. Tom Humphrey stated that they could not and that some of the lots within the subdivision in question have already annexed. Community Planner Connie Clone made a pawer point presentation showing the location of the proposed az~urzexation. Ms. Clone advised that the property owner would like to replace the existing structure, and City services are already provided to the property. A survey was mailed out to other residents in the immediate area to determine if there was any additional interest to be generated far the annexation of other properties at this time. Responses indicated no interest in azu-zexation into City limits. Ms. Clone additionally pointed out that the parcel proposed for annexation meets alI of the criteria for annexation as set forth in Oregon Revised Statutes. Chuck Piland made a motion to forward a favorable recommendation for annexation and a concurrent zone change to the City Council. Pat Beck seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: ldiaz-t, abstained; Oliver, no; Beck, no; Piland, yes; Riggs, no. When queried about their votes, Wayne Riggs stated that he didn't understand what was expected and wanted to change his vote to reflect that he abstained. Other commissioners explained their Planrtirag Conatraissioaa Mirarrle.c Deceraaber 5, 2006 Page 3 reasons far voting the way they had: that some of the people in the audience thought that govez-nment was against them, that the only voice they had was through the Planning Coznznissio~z, that annexation was not a good idea right now, adverse opinions of other property owners in the iznznediate vicinity. Chuck Piland stated that he supported annexation because the applicant doesn't intend to build multiple homes on the property, and he sees no reason not to suppoz-t the annexation proceeding. Tom Humphrey advised commissioners that he would take their vote and their comments to the City Council. B. File No. 5061. A public hearing to consider approval of a Final Development Plan for the Gebhard Village PUD. The subject property is identified on the .7ackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 02AA, Tax Lot 2800. Applicant: Gebhard Village, LLC There were no conflicts or ex parte communieatians to disclose. Planning Technician, Lisa Morgan, presented the staff report, indicating that there have been some changes to the final development plan in order to meet on-street parking requirements. The f nil development plan is, however, consistent with the tentative plan previously approved. The only item of concern is the applicant's request far permission to obtain building permits prior to obtaining final plat. Staff is recommending that final plat be submitted for approval and recording prior to issuance of any building permits. Coznznissioners asked questions about dwelling unit sizes, maintenance ofopen space areas, whether a wall would be built along Gebhard Road, on-street parking, street trees, storm drains, and restricted right-in/right aut onto Gebhard Road. Matt Samitore, Development Services Coordinator, said that all infrastructure improvements need to be completed prior to issuing building permits. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Matt Small, architect and representative for the applicant, came forward and advised that he was available to answer any questions that Commissioners might have. Concezxzs were expressed with regard to safety issues as a result of a park located along Gebhard Road. Chuck Piland asked Mr. Small if the area would be fenced, and Mr. Small stated that it could be added if necessary. Commissioners also requested that architectural enhancements be added to the project to make it more aesthetically appealing by adding brick or stone veneer, creating more dimension and using color creatively. The Planning Commission requested that dormers be added to the rear elevations. Matt Small indicated that they were agreeable to looking at various scenarios and further agreed that an informal meeting with staff to discuss samples and drawings would be a great idea. A question was raised concerning adequate parking and Mr. Small stated that they had met parking requirements for the project. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Planning Corrtrnis.sron Alimuc,s December ~, 200b Page 4 Discussion ensued concerzaing the use of on-street parkin; in the development. Matt Sznall said there were approximately fzfty {50) on-street parking spaces within the development, and that estimate did not include available parking on Gebhard Road. Matt Saznitore pointed out that there was no provision in the City's code for on-street parking requirements. Tozn Humphrey added that national standards are used, and with the higher density zoning in this pz•oject, fewer cars are expected. Chuck Piland expressed a desire that this omission be addressed by staff, and rather quickly. Chuck Piland made a motion to adopt Resolution No. '711 granting final development plan approval for Gebhard Village, PUD with the inclusion of a provision for an informal discussion to be held between the applicant and staff with regard to an architectural ~•eview of this project. Pat Beck seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Idiaz•fi, yes; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. B. File No. O'7Q06. A public hearing to consider Text Amendments to Title 17 of the City of Central Point Municipal Code to provide for concealed building roof and wall- mounted antennas as a permitted use in high density residential, commercial and industrial districts. Applicant: City of Central Point There were no convicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Connie Clune, Community Planner, presented the staff report, indicating that revisions to Section 17.60 of the Central Point Municipal Code clarified site plan review for roof and wall mounted antennas, adding that staff can bring controversial applications to the Planning Commission as a Type III application. The proposed amendments will also require a conditional use permit for tower mounted antennas in the C-4, C-5 and industrial zones. No towers are to be permitted in the TOD corridor and district. The public portion of the hearing was opened. Kevin Martian, land use consultant with Verizon, came forward and provided suggested language to be included in text amendments to clarify the addition of antennas to existing towers {co-located antennas), making them subject to site plan review and creating a limitation an sizes. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Connie Clune requested approval of a resolution by the Planning Commission declaring their intent to amend the City's zoning Title 17. Damian Idiart made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 712 declaring the PIanning Commission's intention to amend the City of Central Point Municipal Code Zoning f'lanrrirtg Corr:rrrission ~~firrrrles December S, 2006 Page S Title 17.08, 17.44 and 17.60 Antenna Standards. Mike Oliver seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Idiart, no; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. Damian Idiart made a oration to adapt Resolution No. 713 forwarding a favorable recommendation to the City Council for approval of amendments to CPMC Section Title 17.08.010, 17.44 and 17.60.40 for roof and wall mounted antenna standards. Chuck Piland seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Idiart, no; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Urban Growth Boundar Ex ansion U date Torn Humphrey, Community Development Director, reported that the Citizens' Advisory Committee had met with property owners in CP-5 and CP-6A, west of Grant Road, and then property owners in CP-2B and CP-3 in the Gebhard Road area. Mr. Humphrey presented Commissioners with recaps of the survey results from bath meetings, indicating that staff would be meeting with residents in the CP-1B and CP-4D areas. The presentation given to each group is consistent, and it is hoped that by March or April of2007, a rough draft of a new Urban Growth Boundary and proposed land uses will be available. Re Tonal Problem Solvin U date Mr. Humphrey advised Commissioners that the Regional Problem Solving process is still ~r~oving forward. He indicated that he was going to support the county's decision to bring the Tolo area into a UGB expansion. There are a lot of geographic reasons for doing so. Additionally, a traffic model will be presented at the December 19, 200b meeting, demonstrating how future development in the proposed urban reserve areas will impact traffic. IX. ADJOURNMENT Mike Oliver made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Damian Idiart seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the December 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on .Tanuary 2, 2007. Planning Commission Chair VYHI"i"I~ HAVYK ~STAT1~S, PUD ~XTI~I`ISIO~I Pl.~nir~ ~c~~:~t~r'r.t~~~~rt~ ~1"`~1~~ ~~! 4.,.,J'C1 1 ~'~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~V~~ Ion, L ,;~~~,,liir~;,I~I~F', ,~ ; fi ~ ''~ ~~ ~ Cam~kc,7ty, C7cve!ca~ r ;~~~. L~irectcrr/ ~~ ''~ n~,-,,~,t<~,~tCityA~~~ u:~;iratar ~~ iii ~+ '~i','~~~j~ri~ J~rt~uary 2, 2007 Ap;I~LICA'T'117N ITI':1~I: FiI.E NO. 0501.1. - White I~avv~l~ Ewe<ttea PUD Consideration ofrequest (~r e~icnsian of White 1-lav~ l: l :statc,s Planned Unit Development Applicant; Duncan Developmurxt, lnc. S'I'f11+'I+' SUU~t~CE~ l.i~a '~~tor~an, Planning Tecl~nciar~ By Rcsalutio~l Diu. ~51~ clatc~l .[tr1~ >. `?tJGS the Planning Commission approved White hawk Fsiatc~ Planned Unit Devcl~7pr7~cnt. cc>ni~tin t~f'r~pl»>axmately 20 acres. White 1-Iaw. Estates is rr resicicntial development comprised Qf ~)1 ~ir~y~le-family, owner occupied units. In accordance with Sectiarr 1'7.68.060 a final development plan must be filed with the City within six (6) months. Section. 17.68.060 contains provisions far extending, with good. cause, the deadline far submittal ofa final dcvell~pment plan far a period of six (6) months. Administrative extcnsior~~ wcrc granted extending the dc<tdlirle for a f"anal development plan to January 5, 2007. T'he latest retl4rest ur~ an c~tcr7sion was re~;ci4 eel iz~ a timely m er. The basis far the extension is to allow the applictu~t a.d+:litit~n~~l time to work.. c~itll state and local agencies to proceed with construction plans. Status afthis uplalicatian was discussed with the Planning Commission at their {7ctaber 3, 2006 meeting. Duncan Development has been working with an environmental consultant and DEQ. The consultant has submitted a management plan and site plan to DEQ for their review. The applicant is currently waiting for DEQ to complete their review process. if granted the revised expir<~ticm date would be Thursday, July 5, 200'7. FINDINGS: The request far an extension was received in a timely manner. ISSUES: I'Jane. ATTACIII~IFNTSlT: ~ t3f13 <T`S: Attachment "A'i - l~ecluest for extension letter dated December l 4, 2006. ttserverail}atpll~005 Land 1!sc I~il~s',t12"ill l White I3aw9~\F'inal Pl~rt extcniun St:~i'f i.epCrtt O1Q207.dcrc Page 1 of 2 ACTION: Consider request for an extension. RECOMMENDATION. Approve request for a six {6) montk~ extension. 2 11Serverzilla1p112005 T,and Use Files105011 W13ite HawklFinal Plat extension Staff Report 010207.doe Pa~e ~ Of Z {~ ~~~~.dl l1~[~A~ 1 ;R ~ 97 ~~ ~ ~ - 1 December 14, 2006 Members of t{re Plarrrting Commission City of Cenb•al Paint I40 Soutlr Tlrlyd Street Central Point, OR 47502 Dear• Members: -- _. , ,~ Uh ~ _ ~, '' `-~'~u _._.._ On Jazly 5, 2005 the Cite of Central Point Planning Conrnrissiorr unanimously approved Resolution 658, approving a Planned Unit Development and Tentative Plan Application for our srrbdivision on Beebe Road, known as Wliite I~awk. We received asix-nrorrtlr extension of that approval wit{r a new expiration date of Jararcary 3, 2007. We are now requesting another six-month extension while we work with atlrer governmental agencies to obtain their approval of the site for development. We appreciate your consideration and patience during this process acrd will await your reply. Sin uncarr 3 PO Bax 5655 • Central Po€nt • Oregon 97502 {54#) 665-LAND Fax (5A1) 665-2979 CC8 #146858 C~F~AY CvUI~T, PUD ~ ~XTI~NSIQN ~~~l~r-~rti~~~ I~c,pa~~tm~e~~ ~5 iC y,,c_; ii i,rl<>C January 2, 2007 AI'PLhCATZ~ON ITEM: FILE 1'~1tJ. QCO60 -- (~s°~~~~ ~'ourt Consideration of request for cxtens~o~t of (ir~ty {`o~~~-t Planned Unit Development Applicant: Jc-n. S. Gray ....- STAFF SCIUIr~'ff~: 1Jisa Morgan, Planning "I~echnician BACKCRC}UND: ___ ._._ _._.~~ _._ ____._ .. __ ._..__ _ e_._.__.__e_________.__ ____ _ _ . __ By Resolution No. 6~~ dated May 2, 2006 the Planning Commission approved. Gray Court Pi;tnn~:c.I Unit Development, con si ~ti n~; o l` approximately 2.15 acres. Gray Court is a residential development comprised of 12 buildings and a total c, f'24 attached single-family, owner occupied units. In accordance with Section 1.7.68.060 a final dei~el~~2~n~cnt plan must be Fled with the City within six (6} months. The expiratic>« ci~tt~: f<~r the preliminary PI ~ I~ a~~proval was Friday, December , 2006. Section 1.7.68.()60 contains provisioa~s for extending, with good cause, the deadline for submittal o f a Fnal development plan for a period of six (6) months. On. December 6, 2006 a request for an e~ten~ion. was received in a timely manner. The basis for the extension. i s to allow the applicant additional 1 i me to resolve civil drawings design and receive completed curve} iz~i~n-~nation. The Planning Commission's decision to approve Gray Court PUD was appealed to the City Council. The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision for approval on June 8, 2006. If granted the revised expiration date would be Monday, July 2, 2007. FINDIGSt Conditions affecting the original approval of Gray Court PUD have not changed. IS.`~~.-iI:S: 1`~l+~ne. ATTACHMENTSITi:~ (~I~l~ S: Attachment "A'" -- Request for extension letter dated December 5, 2006. \1Serverzi[ta\pt~Ot~b LAnd Use T~ilcslbbU6t1 Ur~y C'ourk a~Ul i ~ _,;,,i ~~~~~ exkension Su,l'.~ Rc;-art t31t7~(Y7.dac Page 1 of ~ ACTION: Consider request for an extension. RECOMMENDATION: Approve request for a six (6) month extension. 5 11Serverzilla1p112006 Land Use FiEes106060 Gray Court PUB1Fina1 P[at exfcnsion Staff Report 010207.doc Pa~e ~ Of ~TTA~HlV~,~N~` "~~ l d I• I 1 ~; L Carvrn Martrn, Developer's Agent _ ..~~~ ~°~ 3901 Bridgeport Drive, Medford, Oregon, 97504 ~-_.,___ (541) $57-4374 Office, {541} 210-1OG3 Ceil, {541} 282-9535 Fax calmartin 1 ~MSN.COM Design, Construction Management, Construction Cost Estimates, Contract Negotiations Feasibility Studies, Quantity Surveys, Contract Management, Contract Dispute Resolutions Ciry and Regional Planning, Land Development, Lobbying, Wastewater Technologies 12 i s i Zoo6 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION City of Central Point Oregon Planning Department 155 S. 2"d. Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Regarding: Your approval of a Preliminary Plan of Gray Court Subdivision and Planned Unit Development. Your file # 6060. It has come to our attention that six months of time has nearly past since we obtained approval for the above mentioned subdivision and PUD. It is still our intention to continue with the project and we are nearly ready to submit the f nal plat and working documents for the development. We would respectfully request that you extend the preliminary approval by the legal limit. We anticipate that we will be submitting the final plan before the end of January. We have modified our connection for a water loop and were waiting far survey information to complete the plan, Thank you in advance for your consideration of this request. If you should have any questions or problems with this request please contact me at the above list of contacts and T will respond quickly. Sin rep ~~ - 3 L. Calvin "Cal" Martin, Agent cc. Jan Gray Mark Hanneburg ''i ., s LA1~F`~AFi YAhA~IG~ .,. ~ ` , ~ ~~ ~~ ' p T January , 2007 'If~r~ir~ ~~rmnt 7c~rt~ HurT7f~hrey,AlCf? Cerrnrr7tarrity C:7eveMlo~~m~nt Uir~ctor! hssistx-rnt C:iCy Ar~r77ir~istr~rk~~r AGENDA ITEM: File No. U7021 Consideration of an application requesting a Class C Variance to three standards caf tla CPM~, the 20 ft. access standard, a variance to the minimum lot width and minimum side yard setback requirements in preparation of a Minor Land Partition (File 11`+io. 07020). The subject property is located in an R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 1 iD, Tax Lot 300, 683 Pittview Avenue. Applicants: Galvin and Jeannine Lanfear. STAFF SfJURCEt Connie Ciune, Community Pl er I3ACKGRGICIND. in 195 property to the west was partitioned (Filed Plat r; ~_ . _.,, ....._ ._ __ . ' ~ . ,~,~'~TI ~ VJ 7 1iI i `.'e, It ~ ~ f ., a, l: ~~ 4P ~~ Y~ ~ ~. ~ r r ~ P3 Pfi ! ~ f ~~ , w• ..J" ~p, a ii r.~~.~ i " q tl f,~'a ' 4ta2 " > . C > ~. D.57 KC. ~ ~~~, x= rx ~ ~' subject rop~r#y __.. .. .__.. .__ ...._ ..CiL,i ..._._.. ,. _ _,...,._ .~.., .. ._.... a ~. _ ..__.... -~, .. _...,.w , ...,. __.. .__ . _,~ Y, „_ _.. ~ j I ~ Figure 1 ~; IJ , r ~1 / a >, ~,, ;~. . Y~ „Na. ~f ,~....: _.,~ h ~...:,, ,., Frgure 2 .,„ ,: ~. method of'prc+viclirr~ tirxcss tv the nei~hbc)rhood. To acconuliodate the prol)ost:d tti~'o ("?) lot 1~~arlitioil {l~ilc~ Ncl. O'j0'~Cl~ the applicant, ~n•c~ r~~~~~r,~:~siir,t~ a variance to three pravisiolls of the City o~C,clltrtil 1'4~ir1t Mtrniciptil(.;ode as _ c follows. .~. Vag°iagice 1, A two (2) foot ~ arial~cc tcz the 20 it. ilaf,~ Dole access staixiat~d. To accommodate the proposed partition it is iac~t:cssar•y that the. lad pole minimum be redzicccl to ci~htcen (I 8) fi. for a distance ol~appl•oxirnatcly ninety seven {'~~') i-t. (see 1.; i~iirc~ 3 j, "1'llc i7_ap, pole access will provide ir•r~i'ess and egress to t11c 1)roposed Parcel 2. Chapter 1(~.:3G `~cctiorl l6.>G.OdO ~8~ recluiri:s a flat pole or access to be no lz;as tilali, t~~'tnty 1.~t. ~t iClt,' alld paved to 1)I'lti'atl' stt'l;~'t stan(:lili{.i~. ~ia~-ia~cc 2. A variance to the ~~ fl. rllinimum lot Widt11 retluireinent of the R-i-C zone. `l'hc 1Z-1 •-f~ zone, Chanter 17.20, ectioal 1;'.20.050 requires a mininltiin lot ti~~icit).1 0{~ 1i1iy (5 O) ~.. t~~lag ~iJt partition, `~cction 1 G.30.040(~'~} stoics thafi, ""1-he parcllt and Ilan lot. excltldin+~ the iTa~~ pole. ~~~1lcthel' fcc) title or aIZ cascnlcnt, shall colllply with the zlliniinunl lot size, lot dimension, grid setback i~edtiii'erneilts ~Ior the zoning district in ~n°llicll the lets arc located.'- 'This ~ectioll specifically states that tlzc; zirca ol'a flag pole. he c~cltided fi'oI1~ any calculations of lot d1111tnslf')21s, area, oz° setbacks. ~>s-'hen ihttla~ pole area is excluded. the proposed I'roilt parcel's (Parcel 1) Width is z•c;dttced from 51.9 ft. to 33.9 ft,. ~~s~r°iat~ee A one ~1) foot side yard sctl)ac,k variance is rc~luested to accoininodatc. the proposed partition. l'r4sently, tilt side; yai•cl sctl~acl~ from tllt eastpi'Opel"tV line t0 the d~~'t111I1~ is twtlll;~'-tW0 ~~~') tt. pit dl; narrowest point from thy: e.~istinf; d~~;'ellint.~ to the: pi•opez~ty l~inc. "phis distance would be reduced tci fotil• (:4 j l~t. li~onl the dti3-elliil` to the flap pole cast;irient (s;, Fit,~ttre 4) as a result of~ the p~Ii'titiorl. "1'he l~-] , lZ;sidtntial `~inl;le~ftti11i1y distric9`- Cl7al~tcr 17.20, ~eCt1C)n t `~'.2t),O~t) requires a i1lillinltzzll illtcz•ior side ., _ ~ yard setback of five; (S~ R. . ~ .,~ ;. 1 .,.,; f AI. ___.. ,.,,,n., s _.._ ~ 1~~.. IkF sf 4C?C The lot (Tax ,ot 200) adjacent on the east property line of ~' ~ j ~~ the subject loi has an eaistillg dwelling (manufactured. ` ~ i llozne} located apl)I'oxiinatel~~ ten (10} ft. from the property ~< < ~ line. According to the application, the adjacent property t •, ,~ :,,y ~,~ ~ ~ Y~ . , owner is not interested in st 11 i Iz~ a portion of the lot Tax r y ~`, ~ '~ ~ ~ ~'r ,taa Lot 200) at this time. _, •. ~~ f+'igure 4 II -~. _____ ._._.m:: ...~ w Page 2 of 3 FINDINGS: Attachment "C" ISSUES: 1. The Flag Lots, Section 16.3f.040(A) states that the parent and flag lot, excluding the flag pole, whether an easement or fee title, shall comply with the minimum lot dimension for the zoning district. The purpose in treating easements the same as fee title is to attain the objective of having dwelling setbacks and lot dimension that comply with the minimum requirements of the underlying district. If easements were exempted it would then be possible to have a dwelling abutting a flag pale. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -Subject Site Photographs Attachment "B" -Adjacent and Neighborhood Analysis Attachment "C" -Findings and Conclusions Attachment "D" _ City of Central Point Public Works Staff Report Attachment "E"- Neighborhood Circulation Plan Attachment "F" -Fire District No. 3 Conditions Attachment "G" _ Jackson County Roads Conditions Attachment "H"- Application Attachment "I" -Applicants' Findings Attachment "J" -Proposed Flag Lot Partition Plat Attachment "K"- Resolution No. ACTION: Consideration to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application far a variance. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Class C Variance application, File No. 07021 be denied based on staff findings as set forth in Attachment "C" per Resolution No. 9 Page 3 of 3 ATTACH ENT. "A" 683 Pittview Avenge Applicants. Calvin and Jeannine Lanfear ~' '.~, K ~ ~~~ ~~ ^ w 8) p~ d ~. 9 . ._ d ~ i ~ .. .. .r.. "~~ .,?. x. ~~~~~„ •, F,., x ,.; ~,m1y'mny.. "' Y ~t~tt~i"nll~ T~~~ ATTACHMENT "B" Adjacenf and Neighborhood Property Analysis This is a review of adjacent and neighborhood property located on the south side of Pittview Avenue to inventory size, shape, means of access and existing structural development of the properties. Jackson County Assessor's maps, account data, an aerial photograph, the City of Central Point zoning and Comprehensive PIan maps were used. The intent of the analysis to establish the current conditions of the adjacent area to the subject property {Tax Lot 300}. The analysis included a review of properties located south of Pittview Ave or the center portion of the north'/a of SEI/4 of Section 11, Township 37 Range 2 W to include portions of Assessor's maps 11 D and 11 DA . Tax Lot Subdivision Lot No Map No Lot Dimensions Existing Dwetling s Access 200 11D 103'X 419.6' Pittview Ave 300 {Subject ra e 1 ID S 1.9'X 419.1' y Pittview Ave 400 Parcell P1-1995} 11D 150.39'X234.1' 20'easement 401 Parcell (PI-1995 11D 74.96' X 18S' Pittview Ave 402 Parcel3 P1-1995} I ID 75.44' X 185' PittviewAve S00 11D 103.8" X 419.11' y Pittview Ave/ Covin ton Court Forest Glen Phase II 11DA Marilee Street 207 corner lot) 88 I IDA 70'X110' Marilee Street 208 89 11DA 60'X110' Marilee Street 209 90 11DA 60'X110' Marilee Street 210 91 11DA 60'X110' Marilee Street 2I I 92 I IDA 60'XI IO' Marilee Street 212 93 11DA 60'X110' Marilee Street 2I3 94 I IDA 60'XI IO' Marilee Street 214 9S l 1DA 61.SS'X110' Marilee Street 21 S 96 11 DA 70'X 110' Marilee Street Forest Glen Phase IV 11DA Forest Glen Drive 230 I 1 1 11DA 61.4'XI39.78' Forest Glen Dr. 23i 112 1 IDA 64'X139.7$' Forest Glen Dr. 232 113 11DA 62'X137.76 Forest Glen Dr. 233 114 1 IDA 62'X13S' Forest Glen Dr. 234 115 11DA 62'XI28.25 Forest Glen Dr. 23S 116 I 1 DA 62'X 124.52' Forest Glen Dr. 236 1 I7 I IDA 62X124.52' Forest Glen Dr. 237 11$ l IDA 62'X124.52' Forest Glen Dr. 238 119 11DA 62'X I24.S2' Forest Glen Dr. 239 120 I IDA 62'X124.S2' Forest Glen Dr. ~~ Attachment "C" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No: 07021 INTRODUCTION In the Matter of a Class C variance to: Variance 1. Section 16.36.040 (B} of the CPMC: A two (2) foot variance to the 20 ft. flag pole access standard. Variance 2. Section 17.20.OS0 of the CPMC: A variance to the SO fl. zxziniznuzn lot width requirement of the R-1-6 zone. Variance 3. Section 17.20.OS0 of the CPMC: A variance to the minimum interior side yard setback of five {S) ft. The variance requests are in support of a Minor Land Partition {File No. 07020} in the R- 1-6 zone district fora 21,753 sq. ft. lot located on the south side of Pittview Avenue. (Jackson County Assessor's Map as 37 2W 11D, Tax Lot 300) 683 Pittview Avenue. Applicants: Calvin and Jeannine Lanfear. Section 17.13.100 Variances -Purpose. This chapter provides standards and procedures for variances, which are modif cations to Iand use or development standards that are not otherwise permitted elsewhez-e in this title as exceptions to code standards. This chapter cannot provide standards to ft every potential development situation. The city's varied geography, and complexities of Iand development, require flexibility. This chapter provides that flexibility, while maintaining the purposes and intent of the code. The variance procedures provide relief from specif c code provisions when they have the unintended effect of preventing reasonable development in conformance with all other codes. The variance procedures are intended to provide flexibility while ensuring that the puzpose of each development standard is met. {Ord. 1$74 ~S(part), 2006}. SECTION 17.13.500 Class C variances. A. Applicability. Class C variance requests are those that do not conform to the provisions of Sections 17.13.300 and 17.1.3.400 (Class A and Class B), and that meet the criteria in subsections {A)(1) through (4) of this section. Class C variances shall be reviewed using a Type III procedure, in accordance with Chapter 17.05: 1. The Class C variance standards apply to individual platted and recorded lots only. 13 Page 1 of 8 Finding I7.13.500(A}(1): The subject property is a portion of Lot 22, Pittview Subdivision, amended October 23, 1931, and has been the curreRlt size cozlfiguration for a number of years. Conclusion 17.13.500(1}: Cozxzplies. 2. The Class C variance procedure may be used to modify a standard fvr three or fewer lots, including lots yet to be created through a partition process. Finding 17.13.500{A}(2): The variance application proposes access for the creation of two parcels through the Minor Land Partitioning, Flag Lots (Section 16.3G.040 CPMC}. Conclusion 17.13.500(A)(2): Complies. 3. An applicant who proposes to vary a standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process may not utilize the Class C variance procedure. Approval of a planned unit development shall be required to vary a standard for lots yet to be created through a subdivision process where a specific code section does not otherwise permit exceptions. Finding I7.I3.500(A}(3): The variance application is proposed for a partition application for the two parcels through the Minor Land Partitioning, Flag Lots process, not the subdivision process. Conclusion 17.I3.500(A}(3): Not applicable. 4. A variance shall not be approved that would vary the "permitted uses" ar "prohibited uses" of a zoning district. Finding 17.13.500{A)(4): The variance is for the purpose of providing ingress and egress for a permitted use, the creation of a residential lot in the R-1-6 zone district. The proposed variance does not vary permitted use, nor allow prohibited uses in the R-1-6 zone. Conclusion I7.13.SOOQA)(4}: Complies. SECTION I7.I3.500(C). Approval Criteria. The city shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on all of the following criteria: 1. Tlie proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district ar vicinity; i4 Page 2 of 8 Variance I, Fi~ading 17.13.500{C) (I) The proposed variance to provide an eighteen (18) ft. wide access (flag pale) foz- a distance of appzoxiznatcly ninety seven (97) ft. Section 1G.3G.040(B) requires a flag pole or access to be no less than twenty ft. wide and paved to private standards. The standard was based on the neecls of Fire District No. 3. The Fire District has commented on this variance request (Attachment "F"). The requested reduction in the miniznuzn width of the flag pole would adversely affect Fire District No. 3's abiIity to provide fire protectioza. The zninizxzuzn 20 foot flag pole width is a standard imposed by Fire District No. 3 to assure the adequacy of fire serve protection. Variance I, Conclusion 17.13.500(C): Reduction of the miniznuzn flag pole width will adversely affect fire service. Variance 2, Finding 17.13.500{C) (1): Section 17.20.050 requires a minimum lot width of fifty (50} ft. within the R-1-G district. The definition portion of the City Cade, Section 17.08.10 CPMC definos "Lot width" as the perpendicular bisect of the lot depth. "Lot depth" is defined as the horizontal distance between the front and rear property Iines of a lot measured along a line midway between the side property lines. "Front lot line" is defined as the property line abutting a street. Proposed Parcel 1 front lot line is abutting Pittview Avenue. The measured width of the property is 51.9 feet. The flag pole access easement is proposod to vary in width between eighteen {18) feet and twenty (20) feet. Section 16.36.040 requires that the flag pole be excluded from the calculation of a lots minimum area, dimensions, and set backs. After deducting the flag pole easement, Parcel 1 would be non-conforming in width (33.9 feet vs. 50 feet). Variance 2, Conclusion I7.I3.500(C): The requested variance would create a substandard or nonconforming lot contrary to the intent and purpose of the R-1 zone district, which is to protect the urban low density residential charactez-istics of the district (Section 17.20.010}. Variance 3, Finding 17.13.500(C) (I): The current east side yard setback of twenty- two (22) ft., at the narrowest point, from the existing dwelling to the property line would be reduced to four ft. from the dwelling to the driveway access. The purpose in treating easements the same as foe title is to attain the objective of having dwelling setbacks comply with the minimum requirezxzents of the underlying district. 7f easements wore exempted it would then be possible to have a dwelling abutting a flag pale. Variance 3, Conclusion 17.13.500{C): The side yard setback would be reduced to four ft as a result of the variance in opposition to the intent of the setback standards of the zone. -~• 15 Page 3 of 8 2. A Izarrlslzip to rlevelopnrerrt exists fvlricl¢ is peculiar to the lot size of• shape, topogr•apl:y, or othej• similaj• circumstances f•elated to tl:e pr•opel•ty ovet• zvhicll the applicant leas no contf•ol, and rvhiclt are not applicable to other properties in the vicirxity (e.g., the same zoning district); Finding 17.13.500{C): The CPMC Chapter 1'1.0$, Definitions does not provide a definition of "hardship". Webster's IJ New Riverside University Dictionary, SG5 (ed 1994} defines "hardship" as entailing `pz•ivation or suffering.' Variance 1, Finding 17.13.s0o(C)(z>: The subject parcel is a long (419.1 ft.) and narrow (51.9 ft.} shaped parcel. The parcel has been the current size and shape for a number of years {early 1960's) and the present dimensions prior to purchase by the applicants as depicted on the .Tackson County Assessor's map and the tentative plat land partition map submitted by the applicant. The existing dwelling was sited a number of years ago and has remained the same width as when originally constructed. The 2004 building addition (permit no. B04- 0416} did not add to or extend the original building width. The curz•ent residential use of the subject property has historically occurred and can continue. The applicant argues that the narrowness and extreme depth of the property and the location of the existing residence impose a hardship that is unique and distinct from other properties within the R-1-6 district. Because of this hardship the applicant is unable to partition the property using the flag lot provisions of 16.36.020 without reducing the zxziniznum width requirement of the flag pole poz•tion of a flag lot from 20 feet to 18 feet. The minimum lot width within the R-1-6 district is fzfty {50} feet {Section 17.20.050}. The property's width is 51.9 feet, which meets the minimum standards for the R-1-6 district. The side yard setback far the existing residence is 22 feet, which exceeds the 5 foot side yard setback. As the property currently exists it is classified as a legal conforming property. The property's width and side yard setback are not unique within the R-1-6 district and therefore are not considered a hardship. The property's depth is not unique from the depth of similar properties in the imz~nediate neighborhood, and not Buff cient grounds to qualify as a hardship. Variance 1, Conclusion 17.I3.500(C}(2): The property's width, depth, and side yard setback are not sufficiently unique to qualify as a hardship. The current residential use of the subject property has historically occurred and can continue. Variance 2, Finding 17.13.500(C) (Z): The subject property is primarily level topography with no known natural features that would cause or prevent residential development. The lot width (51.9 ft.) is a size or shape that would preclude the ~~ Page 4 of 8 proposed partition from ~neeti~~g the iriinimum lot width requirement of fifty {SO) ft. excluding the flag pole as required by Section I 6.36.040 {A) of the CPMC. The minimum Iot width within the R-1-6 district is fifty (50} feet (Section 17.20.050). The property's width is S 1.9 feet, which meets the minimum standards for the R-1-6 district. The side yard setback for the existing residence is 22 feet, which exceeds the 5 foot side yard setback. As the property currently exists it is classified as a legal conforming property. The property's width and side yard setback are izot unique within the R-1-6 district and therefore are not considered a hardship. The property's depth is not unique from the depth of similar properties in the immediate neighborhood, and not sufficient gz-ounds to qualify as a hardship. Adjacent properties have a wider lot width ranging from 74.96 ft. to 150.39 ft. as described in the Adjacent and Neighborhood Property analysis {Attachment "B") Variance .2, Conclusion 17.13.540(C): No topographic features are found to be unique to the subject parcel other than the property width. The subject parcel has been the current dimensions {51.9 ft. in width by 419.1 ft. in length) for a number of years and the current dimensions prior to purchase by the applicants. A hardship or `privation or suffering' is found to relate to the pre-existing parcel width that constrains partitioning potential or development to the standards of the R-1-6 zone district rather than in topographic features. The property's width, depth, and side yard setback are not sufficiently unique to qualify as a hardship. The current residential use of the subject property has historically occurred and can continue. Vat•iance 3, Finding 17..13.500(C) (2): The current east side yard setback of twenty- two (22) ft., at the narrowest point, frorri the existing dwelling to the property line would be reduced to four ft. from the existing dwelling to the driveway access. The applicant argues that the narrowness and extreme depth of the property and the Iocation of the existing residence impose a hardship that is unique and distinct from other properties within the R-1-~ district. Because of this hardship the applicant is unable to partition the property using the flag lot provisions of 16.36.020without reducing the minimum side yard setback for the proposed Parcel 1 from the required 5 feet to 4 feet. The side yard setback for the existing residence is 22 feet, which exceeds the 5 foot side yard setback. As the property currently exists it is classified as a legal conforming property. The property's width and side yard setback are not unique within the R-1-6 district and therefore are not considered a hardship. The property's depth is not unique from the depth of similar properties in the immediate neighborhood, and riot sufficient grounds to qualify as a hardship. 1~ Page5of8 Variance 3, Conclresinra 17.13.500(C): The property's width, depth, and side yard setback are not sufficiently unique to qualify as a hardship. 3. The use proposed will be the same as perrrtittell urirler• tlris title arrrl city staradar•lls wr.Il be riratntaaned to the greatest extent that rs reasonably possible fvllile per•rrtitting reasonable economic use of the land; Yariance I, Finding I7.I3.500(C} (3): The subject property is zoned as residential with an existing dwelling and according to the application, is the applicants' residence. Utilization of the currezat residence is permitted and not dependent upon a partition, thus affording reasonable economic use of the land. Yariance I, Conclusion I ~:I3.500(C): The current residential use of the property can continue. Reasonable economic use of the land is permitted by the use of the existing dwelling and associated land. Yariance 2, Finding 17I3.500(C}(3): The use proposed, an 18 ft. access, in preparation For a Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot, will allow a residential parcel to be created below the minimum lot width of SO ft. as specified in the R-1-6 zone district, Section 17.20.OS0 of the CPMC. Variance 2, Conclusion 17,13,500(0}: The variance the lot width would create a parcel (proposed Parcel 1) that is substandard or nonconforming to the residential standards of the R-1-6 zone district. Yariance 3, Finding I7.I3.500(C) (3}: The existing dwelling has an east side yard setback of twenty-two (22) ft., at the narrowest point, from the dwelling to the property line that would be reduced to four ft. Yariance 3, Conclusion I ~ I3.500(C}: The objective of having dwelling setbacks comply with the minimum requirements of the underlying district. 4. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but oat limited to traffic, drainage, natural resources, and parks, will not be adversely affected any more than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject Cade standard; Yariance I, Finding I7.13.500(C) (4): The requested reduction in the minimum width of the flag pole would adversely affect Fire District No. 3's ability to provide fire protection. The minimum 20 foot flag pole width is a standard imposed by Fire District No. 3 to assure the adequacy of fire serve protection. Yariance I, Conclusion 17.13.500(0} (4): Reduction of the minizmurn flag pole width will adversely affect fre service. ~. Page6of8 Variance 2, Finding 17.13.500{C) (4): The requested reduction in the n~inimuzn lot width froze 50 feet to less than 34 feet will not adversely affect existing physical or natural systems. Variance ,2, Conclusion I713.S00{C) (4): Variance 2 can be found consistent with the criteria set forth in 17.13.500{C) (4}. Variance 3, Finding 17.I3.500(C)(4): A reduction in the side yard setback froze the required 5 feet to 4 feet would not have any impact ozi any existing physical or natural systems Variance 3, Conclusion 1713.500(C) (4): Variance 3 can be found consistent with the criteria set forth in 17. I3.500(C) (4}. S. The hardship is not self-imposed; and Variance 1, Finding 17.13..500(C) {6): In Variance 1, finding 17.13.500{C) (2) it was concluded that a hardship does not exist; therefore there is no zninizxzum variance to be considered. Variance 1, Conclusion 17.13.500(C) (6): Not applicable. Variance Z, Finding 1 ~ 13.500(C) {6): Iz~ Variance 2, Finding 17.13.500{C)(Z} it was concluded that a hardship does not exist; therefore there is no minimum variance to be considered. Variance 2, Conclusion I7.13.500(C) (6): Not applicable. Variance 3, Finding 17.13.500(C)(6): In Variance 3, Finding 17.13.540{C)(2) it was concluded that a hardship does not exist; therefore there is no minimum variance to be considered. Variance 3, Canclusion 17.I3.500(C)(6): Not applicable. S. The variance requested is the nrininrum variance that fvould alleviate the hardship. (Orrl, 1874 ~5(part), 2006). Variance 1, Finding I7.13.500(C) (6): In Variance 1, Finding 17.13.500{C}(2) it was concluded that a hardship does not exist; therefore there is no minimum variance to be considered. Variance I, Conclusion I7.13.500(C)(b): Not applicable. Variance 2, Finding I7.13.500{C) (6): In Variance 2, Finding 17.13.500(C}(2) it was concluded that a hardship does not exist; therefore there is no minimum variance to be considered. ~. 9 Page 7 of 8 Vaf~iance 2, Cofrclrision 17.13.500(C){G): Not applicable. Va1•ia~ice 3, Finding 17.I3.500(C)(6}: In Variance 3, p'indin~; 17. i 3.500{C)(2} it was concluded that a hardship does not exist; therefore there is no minimum variance to be considered. Variance 3, Conclusion 1 ~:.13.50D(C)(6}: Not applicable, Summary Conclusion: The Class C Variance approval criteria, Section 17.13.500(C), states the city shall approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application for a variance based on all of the six elements of criteria (1'7.13.050 (C} 1-E}. A variance application must n~eet each of the criteria. This application requested three variances to standards of the CPMC and therefore each requested variance must meet each of the elements of the approval criteria. The Application failed to meet criteria 2, 5 and 6 as it is found that the property's width, depth, and side yard setback are not sufficiently unique to qualify as a hardship. ~d Page8of8 Public Wvrks Department GEC~TR~L POINT '~e~n,zl)(', PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT Decetnl~cr ~, 2D06 ~~~A~~MEhlT' " Bab Pierce, Director Matt Samitore, Dev. Services Coard. AGENDA ITEM: T~vo Lot Pa€•titioza for 37-2W-I 1D, Tax Lot 300 Applicant: Calvin and Jeazu~ine Lanfear Zoning: R-I-b, Residential Single Family Traffic: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, a two lot partition will generate approxi€nately 1.99 peak Dour trips (PHT). The City of Central Point typically requires traffze studies for any development that generates more than 25 PHT. No traffic study is ~~rarxan,ted f©r this de~~elopnzent. ~xistiug Infz•astructure: Water: There is an existing 8-inch waterline i€z Pittview Avenue. Storm Drain: There is an existing roadside drainage ditch that flows to the Fast into a City storm drai€z facility. Street Section: Pittview Road is county road, currently paved to a width of twenty-four feet. Engineering arzd Development Plans and Permits: Tl€e Central Point Public Works Department is charged with manage€xzent of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Departn~eut's "Standard Specif€catians and Unifoixn Standard Details for Public Vdorks Constructiozi" s]~all govern how public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Departzrzent. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm drainage basin zrzap, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan may also include applicable traffic studies, Iegal descriptions and a traffic control plan. A Public Works Pei7nit will only be issued after the Departzxient Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the developnent will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. AlI fees are required to be paid in fall at the tinge tl~e Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer trzust pay the relevant inspections fees and bond for any uneon~pleted improve€rie€its (as dctern-zined by the Public Works Director). ~~ 140 South Third Street <. Central Point, OR 97502 •541.664.3321 ~~ Fax 541.564.63&4 Issues: The proposed partition con#Iicts with, a neighborhood circulation plan that is rccoznn~ended by Public Works. The plan conteznplatcs redevelapmezat of the South side of Pittview Avenue in relationship to neighborhood circulation. The proposed circulation plan is attached. There is an existing `Butterzaut' Tree that is on the southern edfe of the right-of way. A sidewalk easernent will be required to nrzeander a sidewalk around the tree in order to preserve the root structure. Conditions of Approval: 1. Pittview Avenue In~zproveznents: Developer will be responsible for constructing curb, gutter, and sidewalk and additional paving width to Pittview Avenue far the subject property. Coordination of these iznprovenreuts will be discussed with Public Warks Staff and Jackson County lZoads once cozistruetion drawings are approved for this development. No Deferred Iznprovezxzent Agreements are allowed for this section. of Pittview Avenue. 2. Public Utility Easement (PUE~: The developer shall dedicate on the Final Plat a ten feet wide public utility easement (PUE) adjacent to Pittview Avenue and the private drive. 3. Private Drive: The standard private drive far Central Point is twenty feet. A revised plan will need to be approved by Public Warks if Variance application is approved. 4. Fire District Street Requirements: Fire District No. 3 has coznznentad and stated that the developer shall sprinkle any building proposed for Parcel 2 and a fire hydrant will need to be installed near the intersection of the pzxvate street and Pittview Avenue. 5. Gradi~ Permit: Applicant shall obtain a grading permit from the Building Department prior to any construction occurring. G. Existin Street Tree -~ There is an existing butternut tree that is within the right-o~=way of Pittview Avenue. A tree preservation plan and meandered sidewalk easement shall be designed to preserve the tree. ~~ 140 South Third Streef =_ Central Point, Oft 97'502 • 541.664.3321 ~~ Fax 541.064.6384 ...~e.. . , µ~.,.. _w_ _. _ ~~.._._. ___~._----- . --_ M , ~. ~ ,,' ,: ~~~ .. ._ µ .w ~:. ~~ ~ ~ ~µ ,,. .~ a ~~ ~ . ,, .~ .~ ~~ s . ~., .~ f .~ ., .,. ~.. ~m ~. ~~ ~ ., ~~ ~. . ~ rv _ ~; B a n. . ' . t ~ & ~ v ~ +P~~.. ~ „ .. ~ I ~ ~. ^,;'e. ...,'w ^ .a." f ., " .. ., ~. .. w ~, S ~.~~~ ~ ~5 ~. y'"'~ .. .,~,~ ,gyn.., ~,,~~, 4 Y0 C ^.y ~,i m .a n pu H, i ~ ~ ~ r ~~ , iii,.. KK .u. . ~~~ 1 ~y,~s.... _.. w.+agp..' ' Y v ~ ~ ~ ~ u4 „ MMwX:W+ .~ , ~ w„~ ~ ,, w ., ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ .. „~, N .~ " ° ~ ,, .,~, ,, ,, r„.. w. a .. ~. ~, ~~ ~ .., ~ ~• ,~~~ „~„~..' ~ ,, ~ ~, ~.~. a ~~ ,.,. „.y r, ~ ',', , "~ ~P'. a „" ~ .„..,, 1 ~,. i ,'r ~.., ... , ~ .,. ..,: •~ ~ .. .~,. n . _. .. . ,,, r., ,. ~ cM .r ,„ .. ~ ~ .; .. w x "m: ~ %~~ N~~ ei ~ v ~ r °ui ~""'„.m. .. ~: ,~ i x ffi ~. rn r ~ R' ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~~ w ~tt p e i ~ n , u ~.i,„d -, .. .,_ .., ...~. ., :.._ ~~. ~i_. .,..~.,~ ~ ..s~ ., m,.... 12f28f20~6 1©: 54 8264566 .7CFL~~ ~'~ OFC PAGE 01f~1 ~~~~~IYI~t 11 C iL1~ Jackson County ~~re District No. 3 ;~ „ ~, X333 Agate Road ~} Whlite City oR 9T5D3~-x.075 ,~; {541) 826-ii~a {voice) {541) 826-456& (fax) iii.,.. . . Internat'ional/yAccretl'it~d - 20D5-2Q.T p December 28, 2x06 Connie Clurrte Planner City of Central Point Project # 07D21~ Lanfear Partition and variance .After reviewing a larger scale site plan and viewing photos of the proposed project site, the following conditions shall be required, Dur recommendation is to not approve this project unless all conditions are met and complied with. Many of these typ® developments have been approved in the past. The requirements were not completed as required with same of these past developments, We are now living with several projects that pose protections and public safety challenges for Fire and EMS providers. We must make sure that all conditirns are met and complied with so we reduce the community risk and allow emergency service, utilities, sanitation and other service providers a safe environment to operate in. • Verify what type of dwelling will be built not proposed on these sites. Explain in detail if these will be one, two, or three story. Disclose the square foot of each dwelling. Any building 3Q ft or mare in .height shaft have an approved access lane of 2E ft width minimum and an approved turn around. • 20~farat access width is the minimum Oregon Fire Cede access 5tandQrd. OFG 5x3.2.1. • Provide and approved turn around as described in appendix D OFC figure D1x3.1 Dead End Fire Access, l;xceptian, to the Turn Around would be to provide throughout automatic fire sprinkler system, approve by NFPA 13 residential code standards for parcels 1 and 2. • install a fire hydrant at the beginning of Phis access lane and Pittview Ave. The hydrant lotion shall be within 3Q0 feet of the farthest dwelling. • Additional fire flow and hydrants wi11 be required if the dwellings are mare than 3600 sf. These hydrants shall provide at feast (15pCt GPM) minimum, • Provide approved signage as required fay 4FC D103.6 No Parking Fire Lane and this shall be in ©rdinance to be enforced by City Cade Authority. (See definition of Fire access OFC 50 which include public, private, parking lots and driveways that access a building.) Moran ~~~- DFh/l 24 November 7, 2006 Connie Clune Planner City of Central Point Jackson County Fire District No. 3 8333 Agate Road ----- .,_..__..__ White City oR 97503-1075 (541) 826-7100 (voice} (541) 8264566 (fax) InfernationallyAcoedited - 2x05-20.10 Project # 07020 Lanfear Partition and Variance The Fire District approves this with the following conditions. • The access to parcel #2 will exceed 150 feet. • Signage "No Parking Fire Lane" will be required along the travel path bath sides clearly pasted. • If more than 3 dwellings are served by this access, an approved turn around will be required. Exception: They may provide residential sprinkler system to the building{s) in trade for the turn around. • They will need to verify the location of the closest fire hydrant to this project. Mark Moran DFM 2~ i~H~v.,~i~~;'~~i~i~;`1~iE ?~i:~, ~,~,0`~SOf'd ~:~OUl~~~IT' POP,flS ~;~.~ ~:~, F~~I ?~ F,?~~Y, ~~ F. ~~)i~!f,f^ij /'°~ ;rrlc Nlenteyer, ~'~ 7y~n~c .~ 35avelopnteni 1;1y~inerr 20p Antelope Road Wh(te Clty. OR 97$p3 Phone: {SAi) 77d-829p fax: (641} 774~fs29b niemeynl(p~jacksonoavnty,orq www.j3cksoncau nty.Rrg .~~~s November 17, 2006 Attention: Connie Ciuno , City of Central Point Planning 140 Soartth Third Street Central Point, OR 97502. , RE: Partition off Pittview Arienue - acounty-maintained section of road. Planning File: 07020 & 0702'l ; A residential partition. Dear Connie: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this;applieatian for a partition tar Calvin l.anfear. The partition will create two parceis located on the south sida of Pittview Avenue west of Marilee Street, Roads ar~d Parks has the fallowing comments: Z . The applicant shall submit construction.drawings to Jackson County Roads and Parks and obtain county permits if required. 2. The appiica~t shall obtain a road approach permit from .Roads and Parks far any new or improved road:appraach to Pittview Avenue. Vlle recommend shared access. 3. Please Hate Pittview Avenue has asixty-foot right=of-way, Sincerely, ~~ Eric Niemeyer, PE Traffic & Development Er~gin~er - ~s f:lFnginca€~6iglDovolopmor~11C;4T [ E5ICNTRl:P11d7020.wpt4 ~.: CENTR.~L Po~NT VARIANCE AI'PLICA I'I[1N City of Cetxiral Point Planning llepartntent TX'I'Is `~- „~, r? 2Q~~ ,~','';~ ~,~~~{ DATG STAh1[' FOR OFFICE f)$#i pT#,}' APPLIC NT_~~i~7y~ F'O~RIVIATION: Name: _~~(j c v'~ LEZ~~-ea.~,~ ~--#~ Address: ~: `~ ~ ; .e~.c> City:_~ __ c ~.,.-~, Slate: ,~'(`- Zip Code. ~~ Teleplronc: tusiness; Residence: E-mail Address: AGENT INFORMATION: Name: _ -c---~ r~ ~~.r-~ r ,~ Address: ~--~ City: Ls?~~ a State: 62 .Zip Code: 1-7~~L Telephone; Business: ~- 5 ~ ~ Residence: E-mail Address: CF'4VNER OF RECORD: (Attach Separate Sheet if More Than Otte): Name: _ ~L~.,r~ ~ C~ r`.c_:~c,~ ~ ____ Address: City: Slate: Zip Code: Telephone: Business: Residence: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Township: ngc: Z C.t3 Section: ((t7 Ta.~ Lnt(s): ~~C7 Address: ~~ -~-v ~ ~-~-~ Zonint; Bistrict: - l " Total Acreage: O TYPE OF VARIANCE C7 Setbaclt within ] 0% of code requirement (see CFMC 17.10.300) ^ Minimum Density Vehicular Acness and Circulation Standards CJ Street Tree Requirements ^ Fari:ing and Loading Standards 1r4~ifer Minimun3 Yard Setbacks t , ^ Pence or other situation General C3escription of Variance Request: ~ i ~ ~ _~ ~cti t.o"~' ~3 ~ o~c ~-'. REQUIRED S€3B1YIiTTALS: {3'~Application Forrn dd Application Pee (See Current Fee Schedule) lid #te Plan and Elevations ]]yawn to Scale (]0 sets) fr3' one copy of reduced Bite Plan & Elevations (S '/Z x 1 [ ) ~~rriten Authority from Property Owner if Agent in application process f~' Written fitrdistgs of fact (Addressing Criteria in Section 17_t3.200()3} CPMC) t~tvlai9ing labels for all properties within 100 foot perimeter ofpropcrty I HEREBY STATE THAT TAE FACTS RELATED IN TH6 ABOVE APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUA4ENTS Sl3BMITTED IIERI;WITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT, AND ACCiJRATE TO THE BEST Op'1~IY KNOWLEDGE. t certify that t am tlte: C] Property+ Owner or [~uthorizcd Agent of Owner ~, - _~/~ ~7 of Arojeet Site Signature: ,~/ `"`-/ Gl ~"~~ late: /Q --Za -- C9 ~, I€ any wetlands exist on the site, iE is thn applicant's responsibility to apply €or a permiE to the D'svision of State Lands before any site wnrk begins. FOR PLAATllTIIVG BEPARTMENT IJSE ONLY Application Accepted As Complete on: Lan813se Case P'i!e No. 124'" Day for Lnnd Use or Limited Land Use Decision: Wetlands Check: j%~~ f-;~-f,, t~~~ :r7r'~ I ; ~~' ~~~H~~NT " J~ C,Scn'crzilfuiplll.undUw ApplicnlionstVariance Appliwtion.doc Revised Azgusi 2.2D46 October 17, 2006 City of Central Point Planning Department 140 South Third Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Lanfear Variance application, 372W11D-300 at 683 Pittview Lane, Background information: oC~~i~ %~ Zu~~ J j Work started on a site plan and application for a partition in August of 2005. A site survey was done to identify the title boundaries and improvements on the property. An application was prepared for a flag lot partition and submitted to the city in March 2006. The application was prepared based on meetings with the applicants and city staff'. Meetings have been held with the adjacent property owners in an effort to develop a plan that would work for all parties. The adjacent owners have declined to work with the applicants, therefore the applicants are moving forward with this application for a Class C variance per Chapter 17.13,500. Copies of the letters sent to the Asher are attached to this application. This property has been looked at from all angles and the accompanying plan is the only one that will work with the present circumstances. This application is requesting relief from the Flag Pole standard of 20 feet in Chapter 16.36.040 B. The proposed flag pole is 18 feet wide until it gets past the existing dwelling at which time it expands out to 20 feet. This standard is driven by fire safety allowing the access of fire equipment to the site. The applicants stipulate that the proposed dwelling resulting from this parcel will have a fire sprinkler system thereby mitigating the fire safety issue. Additional relief is sought far minimum lot width and side yard set backs defined in Chapter 17.20.054. The side yard set back to the proposed easement and existing dwelling is between 4 and 8 feet. All of the other setback dimensions to the existing dwelling and property line are pre-existing. The proposed parcels meet minimum and maximum density and lot areas. The proposed development does comply with or will comply with maximum building height and lot coverage. The minimum lot width does not comply with the standard after the access easement is deducted from the width. Relief is sought for this standard as it is the only way to utilize this infill property to the minimum density this code requires development to occur at. C. Approval Criteria. The city shall approve, approve with cafzditians, or deny an applicationz for a variance based on all of the following criteria: 1. Tire proposed variance will not be materially detrimental to the purposes of this code, to any other applicable policies and standards, and to other properties in the same zoning district or vicinity; ~~ Finding: This add shaped parcel is a result of land use prior to our present day planning standards. Chapter 17.2D.010-lhe purpose of the R-1 district i.s stabilize acrd protect the urban detrsity residential characteristics of the district while promoting suitahle environments for family life. This proposed development is consistent with other development in this neighborhood in recent times. ~t is an inpll lot and as stated in the background discussion is the best that can be done within the limitations of the parent parcel owned by the applicants. 2. A hardship to development exists which is peculiar to the lot size or shape, topography, or other similar circumstances related to the property over which the applicant has na control, and which are not applicable to other properties in the vicinity (e.g., the same zoning district); Finding: This bowling alley shaped lot was confgured in its present configuration in the mid 60's. These lots were derived from the Pittview Subdivision Ammended dated in the early 1900's. All of the development in this old subdivision has had the same general constraints but this parcel is the narrowest of them. The applicants purchased the property in this configuration therefore had no control over it. This hardship is not self imposed. The narrowness of this parcel makes it unique to the surrounding parcels. 3. The use proposed will be the same as permitted under this title and city standards will be maintained to the greatest extent that is reasonably possible while permitting reasotrable economic use of the land; Finding: The applicants are asking that they be allowed to develop their property to the same density as code requires and could not da without the approval of this application. Their intent is to build one single family residence to the rear or south end of the proposed Parcel 2. By doing so there is still a potential for the land in the middle ofthis tract to be used in future redevelopment should the right opportunity come along with the adjacent property development. The applicant has done everything within their power to utilize their property without hindering any future development. ~{. Existing physical and natural systems, such as but not limited to traffrc, drainage, natural resources, and parks, will not be adversely affected any mare than would occur if the development occurred as specified by the subject code standard; Finding; This proposed development will have no adverse impact on any natural features and may actually provide some potential for some open space areas as a result of the road access and the narrow parent lot. S. The hardship is not self-inrpased,• and Finding: As previously stated this land was in this configuration when purchased by the applicants therefore was not self imposed. The applicants have done all they can to cooperate with their neighbors to make arrangements to solve the constraints that cause 29 the need for this variance. They are willing to configure their development in a manner that will not prohibit the adjoiner's from developing in the future. 6. The variance requested is the minimum variance that would alleviate the hardship. (did 1874 ~5(part), ZQOG). Finding: The requested variances are the minimum that the applicants need to allow the addition of one additional dwelling to their property. Respectfully Submitted, ~~~ Herbert A Farber 30 ~~~~~1YE~lil~ ;5 ~ f9 RCa33TERF.b PRpFESSi~Nn~ LLA]i~BUFYiYQR 7'~" /~~ aREGDI: .4`iY ]a, 596 MRdfA ]109FA4dER RENEIYA! DATC 12-]3-G7 ~a .. __.__.~]o_ ._, J E€ / t , 372W] rD rax LoT Oar M -'- ~ b O k ~p a ~~ 372YVi I D TAX r 07 400 t 5 I ~ Exrsnrrc ~ 5.Q FOOT P.U.E_ \ r~NrArrvL- PLAT LAND PARTlrfafJ Incofed in SOUTNEilST' Q[fAFiTER OF SEC710N T f 7n?4NSFf1P 37 SOUTH, RANGE 2 N'E5T riT1J...4MET7F' AfER10lAH, CITY OF G~7'lTRAL POfNT JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON t fpr CALVlN and JEANNlNE LANFEAR 17.0. r~ox last 1aa<'DFORO, ORECCN 97501 Sf TUS 683 P1TTYrF.w AVNUE CEN TF2l.L POIN 7, pR£Gp11 47507. ~- --Prrrvt~t~lr A u~- - ~- -~-~ f~:_- R/w l±assra; w 1BS.ao LEGEND B rawB 2 I/2" BRASS cAP - slR~r tER rExceHE .372'!V1 II7 0 - rouvB s/B• mar PIH. P.t.s zfa9 TAX L4r 200 ® - MA TER JIGGER . f1RE HYDRART H e YAr{k VAEK Sao-KA - BVRRlED WA rER s - sA,erAxY sexcx p suarARr sEKE]r yArola_t ~ - PoAra Ptr, E £- - cvr x1RC a-.-u , oJERNEAf} J'onCR ~--E~ a EDQ a' PA K]ICNT nc-x~ . TOP BAGN LtIHB 56-m c STaiN ~.RA1H .1lxs - sPOr ce~vATrov -&A5r$ pr gEAR9vC I$ 1hUC HPRiH. HAO 85/91 DA NH. AS 0.`RlKD 8Y RGBAL POS1RarR'G 515 T[u OC35ER VA TfCH$. -RCCaRO SUft YEY BATA IS 9rp11T! Mt PAR£HP1($I$ ADJAC'[n'7 iD HEA$UREp ,~ SVR4CY BATA M91LTtE APP[!{AIXG --INSY. No. ~ NSIHU1lCNT RLMB€R AS RCCDRDfD W RfC dT1aAC aEGaw$ dF JA.^KSOH CIXIHIY. GWEfAH. -PVE ~ PUB:IC U7[1TY EASEit[HT FPR YAIER, $AHf rARY $ENER, $T{A9v y~ W DHACH. PNOHE. GAS, AHD GABIE N NarEs 0 U - WE TP LAp( p' ELf yAOpv []fµ(.~, ,gaT f1CVARCNS ARF SNBHN - rota Ar~CAG£ - .sa ACRLS (2r, ]S9 so rr} - PARL~T, i iDTAI. ARCADE - 1;)59 50. FT, ACL755 CASCVCNT ACCiCAGE - S)I~ Sq. fl - PARCEL 2 rO]AL ACREAGE ~ 0993 Sp. R. vraNrrY MAP rvor ro scaL~ FiQPKfNS R0. r r r sag3s'ze r `~ sz,4; ~~FOREST GLEfV PHSASC.- 1 V >,'e3~55'z 3728'110A 372WIiDA 377H'IfDA 372Y^flpA TAY. LOT ?3S ~ TAX LDT 233 TAX LOr 237 TAX LoT 231 Assess/rs xur No, .rnwl~n-son Sheet T of T Surveyed 6y FARBER ac SONS, lNG dba FARBER SUFZ1/~YfNG (~+T) ss4-mss l 1 P. o. eox szes 431 OAK SY. CEN n7AL POINT. OREGON 47502 SCAtf~ r" -, 30' _ _ ~. ~,{ J 7119T 1AA D' IS' 30' 60" 12D' ux LOi 230 OAT{; AtARCU Ib. ;DOF JJ;l NO-- r7P<-D$ DRA'N.f1G FCC£: J'3B5 \CCN Dr A± POiIr T\PITrNEw\J.RLRpS VR~Fx\St;C-/AP.p µ~, ~I l B.Oa ' 1 ~ ti { ExlSTrrrc DI4ELLINC 1 ~ ~ v° S ~ r I B_r I ~ COr1CRE rE I - Pap I ~~ r tl n I Proposed I w F Parcel 1 i GROSS AACA ~ 12]!,9 Sq. H. I EFSS EAS£NENi ~ 1114 Sq. H. I ISI AALA o ww sRn I I i I I a I } 3 I 0.oB $1.9B Proposed Parcel 2 wss sa n ,. ~~~~9Vf~A tl~ L6~~ 99 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO DENY A CLASS C VARIANCE FROM: 1. Section 16.36.040{B) of the CPMC: A two (2) foot variance to the 20 ft. flag pole access standard. 2. Section 17.20.OS0 of the CPMC: A variance to the 50 ft. minimum lot width requirement of the R-1-6 zone. 3. Section 17.20.050 of the CPMC: A variance to the minimum interior side yard setback of five (5} feet. OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE. Applicants: Calvin and Jeannine Lanfear. (37 2W 11D Tax Lot 300) 6$3 Pittview Avenue WHEREAS, the Applicants have submitted an application for a Class C Variance from three standards of the City of Central Point Municipal Code as listed above an property identified by Jackson County as Tax Lot 300 in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on January 2, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing the City of Central Point Planning Commission, considered the Applicants' request for a Class C Variance from three standards of the City of Central Paint Municipal Code as listed above; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned R-1-6, Residential Single Family; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to Flag Lots, Section 16.36.040, R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district Section 17.20.050 and Class C Variance Section 17.13.500 of the Central Point Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicants' request it is the Planning Commission's determination that the Application does not comply with the applicable standards and criteria as set forth in the Staff Report (Exhibit "A"} dated January 2, 2007; now therefore BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission City of Central Point, Oregon by this Resolution No. hereby denies the Application based on the findings and conclusions of denial as stated in the Staff Report (Exhibit "A") dated January 2, 2007. Planning Commission Resolution No. {11212007) PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of January, 20x7. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this day of January, 2007 Planning Commission Chair 33 Planning Commission Resolution No. {11212007} LANF'~AR NIIHQR LAND PARTITION ~' '~; i ,; f ~M+"^ ,p ST~,F ~P T January , ~~~~ Iii ~p~~°t~ir~ T~>n~ t#urnpl~tre~y, FtIC.I? twtsrnrttt~nity C)e~vclr~C~rn~r~t l~'rrecTcrrd flssist~r7t ~:ity llcirttirtisCratc~r~ AGENDA ITE » File No. 0'7'020 Consideration of a Minor Land Partition, Flag Lat application to create two residential parcels. The subject property is located in an R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 111, Tax Lot 3+D0, 683 Pittview Avenue. Applicants» Calvin and Jeannine Lanfear. STAFF SUURCE» .._ _... r" Connie Clone, Community Plaz~r ... ~..~? BACKGT~.©UND» The subject property is approximately 21,753 sq. ft. in size and is a long X419.1 ) and narrow {51,9 ft) shaped parcel (Figure l~. An existing dwelling is located an the property. The general area is comprised of exceptionally deep lets with the potential far further partitioning. All of the lets are developed with single-family residences fronting Pittman Avenue. The subject property and nezg ar aad have urban services, i~. - ~~, ~., a , ., wNr~~Jt~~~~ ~vfw __. w. _ ._ i ;;p R ,~q,,;, ~~ X02 ~;'' "•~'~` j a.sr r~:,; r, ~ ~~ ~ ,r .~ c~ ~~ o.er ; : s ._ -~v, _.,. pp r~ 1P200 ~I i~i ~`:~.,,~2 ~9 ~wbaect Property ~~ ~ ~ GD.CN_.. _ ~ ........ _ ~ ~~~ Figure 1 / ~/ f '~ ~ , In 1995 property to the west was partitioned (Filed Plat P1-1995). At that time a neighborhood circulation plan was prepared by City staff illustrating haw the general area could be developed (Figure 2). This ne i~l~k7orhood c.ir~culation plan has nc~-cr~ k~~~~rr~ cr(~iiciall~yt ~rdoptec~ ~~rrct currently scrv~,s as a pr~c.Icr~rcd method ofpro~~idirl~; ~rccess to the trei~lrborlxro~i. It is the applicants' intent to create t~~s~o }~ar~cc3~> usirl~ i13e }~ l~r~~, i,ot provisioXZS of ~cctiol~ 16.36.040 (~~i~urc~ 3). section 16.36.O~D(1~) states th~rt, `.~I'lzc ~ar•errt ar3cd ~frr, lot, twxcluc~irr~, tlrc i7ag i~t~le, wh~th~r ,fee tide or an easerl>ent, shall eonll~ly with ih{~ mi)air»urr~ loi sirs. 1nt dime~lsiorr_ ar~d setk~ack requirements for' tht: zot~irrt; district in ~~,-lrich il>~ lots ar•e locat~;i ' "T`he ~tollo~~~in~ t~~~Zlc cor7~l~~rres the minir»um R-1-~, Section 17.'?0.0 f.) o~"t.l~e CI'~'~vl, lot ~;i~c s:rr~cl setback rcctuir~c~r»enis with ikre proposed partition. '-1-6 Ft_l-{ tt~l t~- __- 1Z-l~Fr R-~..~ ~._......_._. I~et Lot area Lot ~idc IZcar F'rcrr~l. Wetback File i`+io Minimu~aximum: 'G~'r'dtla `~ethac;l; setback 2U ft 07020 5,000 f 9,000 s~ ft 50 ft ~ 1i 1a 1"t 17.?().[i~U ~!"i.20.o5t1 y(1.2t).0~(1 ~17.2t~.USO 517.20.t7~tt Parcel 1 __ li,l}-~-9 scl l~t, -- ~ .~> 1`i - ~ 1~1 15 ft _ __ 1 t).~-1 it t~~isiita.~ {j~L'Cttill~~ Parcel 2 $,999 q it. 51.9 tt N!~ 1`*tfA I~ki'A. ~ ~'~1.~,a11t 1'~ote:, indicates nr~~~con~orming starxlar°d As indicated in Table 1 above, hrop~>scd Parcel 1 does meet tkae net tot area stand~rrd, however the tot width and setback statrcta~-ds of Section 17.2(7.050 of the Cl'Iti'IC cannot be met.. Parcet 2 satin#ii;:s both the area and tot ~~~idtl reduit•crncni of Section 17.20.50. Any future residential development o~i 1'arct;l 2 should be able to meet setback rccttairer~~cnts or`~ the R-,1-6 gone. To aclcl~~ess the noncrrrrlari.7~ing issues note°cl above., fire ~)pplicar~ts lra~;~t stzbnlitted a varia~lce application (File Ida. 07021} io ~1~, ee pr~vl5iux~s c~fthe City of Cci7tral I'~air~t 11/T~ir~icilaal Ct~de. __ ' ~ ( f ~ I ~ ~, _. ; ~ i _. `, ; t ~~ { 1 i a ~ r F ___ ~ 1 { i 6 ~ , . Page 2 of 4 FINDINGS: Attachment "C" ISSUES: 1. A Minor Land Partition, 1"lag Lot request is a Type 11 applications review; however this proposal necessitates variances to the flag pole access width requirement, minimum lot width and side yard setback requirements. A Class C Variance application {File No. 07021) has been filed in preparation of this proposal. The review of this partition will follow and is predicated by the variance application review. Should a variance to the access standard, minimum sat width and side yard setback requirements not be approved, this application will not be valid, 2. Should the neighborhood circulation plan (Attachment "E") be considered in evaluating this application? The neighborhood circulation plan that is designed for the future redevelopment of the south side of Pittview would utilize the proposed 18 ft. easement as part of a future street. The future street is designed to provided public access and maximize development potential of interior land south of Pittview. The feasibility of implementation of the circulation plan is a questionable priority due to the inequitable distribution of improvement costs. The alternative to the neighborhood circulation plan would require several flagpole accesses from Pittview for any partitioning potential. The neighborhood circulation plan, if implemented, would provide street access to potentially sixteen (1b) lots if the area were developed to the R-1-6 density of 5,000 sq. ft. lots. 3. The property owner abutting the east property line (Tax Lot 200} has indicated an interest in developing their property. Timing of development is uncertain. 4. Should the location of any proposed, newly constructed dwellings be sited with consideration of the circulation plan? An application for partitioning residential zoned land is usually done in preparation of an application far a dwelling. The site location of a dwelling on proposed Parcel 2 could affect the future design of a street {public or private) if it were located an the north portion of Parcel 2. 5. An existing Butternut tree of substantial size is located on the southern edge of the right-of--way. City Public Works department is requiring a meandering sidewalk around the tree in order to preserve the root structure. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -Subject Site Photographs Attachment "B" -Adjacent and Neighborhood Analysis Attachment "C" --Findings and Conclusions Attachment "D" - City of Central Point Public Works Staff Report Attachment "E" -Neighborhood Circulation Plan Attachment "F" -Fire Distz-ict No. 3 Conditions Attachment "G"-Jackson County Roads Conditions Attachment "H" - Application Attachment "I" -Tentative Partition Plat ~s Page 3 of 4 ACTION: Consideration to approve, approve with conditions, or deny an application far a Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot application. RECOMMENDATION: Recommendation that the Minor Land Partition, Flag Lat application, File Na. 07020 be denied per Resolution No. If the Planning Commission. selects to approve the requested variance per File No. 07021, then the Planning Commission can approve the Minor Land Partition and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for consideration at the Planning Cor~arnission's February 6, 2007 meeting. 3'7 Page 4 of 4 A l 1 A L`r19 1; i4A5f 683 Pittview Avenue Applicantsa Calvin and Jeannine Lanfear ~" # BU~GI'I1U~ ~'T8~ ATTACHMENT ~~B" Adjacent and Neighborhood Fr©perty Analysis This is a review of adjacent and neighborhood property located on the south side of pittview Avenue to inventory size, shape, means of access and existing structural development of the properties. 3ackson County Assessor's maps, account data, an aerial photograph, the City of Central point zoning and Comprehensive Plan maps were used. The intent. of the analysis to establish the current conditions of the adjacent area to the subject property ('T'ax Lot 340). The analysis included a review of properties located south of Pittview Ave or the center portion of the north'14 of SE1/4 of Section 11, Township 37 Rartge 2W to include portions of Assessor's maps 11D and 11DA . Tax Lot Subdivision Lot No IYiap No Lot Dimensions Existing Dwelling s Access 200 11D 103'X 419.6' Pittview Ave 300 {Subject TO ) 11D 51.9'X 419.1' y Pittview Ave 400 Farcel 1 {P1-1995 11D 150.39'X234.I' 20' easement 401 Parcel 2 P1-1995) 11D 74.96' X 185' Pittview Awe 402 Parcel 3 (P1-1995) 1 iD 75.44' X 185' Pittview Ave 5pp 11 D 103.$" X 419.1 I' y Pittview Ave/ Covin ton. Court Forest Glen Phase 11 11DA Marilee Street 207 (corner lot 88 11DA 70'X110' Marilee Street 208 89 11DA b0'Xi IO' Marilee Street 249 90 11DA 60'X1 IO' Marilee Street 2I0 91 11DA 60'X110' Marilee Street 211 92 11DA 60'X110' Marilee Street 212 93 11DA 60'X110' Marilee Street 213 94 I IDA 60'X110' Marilee Street 214 9~ 11DA 61.85'X110' Marilee Street 215 96 i 1DA 70'X110' Marilee Street Forest Glen P1Zase IV I IDA Forest Glen Drive 230 11 i 11DA 61.4'X139.78' Forest Glen Dr. 231 112 11DA 64'X139.78' Forest Glen Dr. 232 113 11DA 62'X137.76 Forest Glen Dr. 233 114 I IDA 62'X135' Forest Glen Dr, 234 115 11DA 62'X128.2S Forest Glen Dr. 235 116 I IDA 62'X124.52' Forest Glen Dr. 236 117 11DA 62X124.52' Forest Glen Dr. 237 i 18 11DA 62'X124.52' Forest Glen Dr. 238 119 11DA 62'X124.52' Forest Glen Dr. 239 120 11DA 62'X124.52' Forest Glen Dr. 39 'G ,.f ~ : ~ ~ ,x~ f . ' i' . _~~ .T_,~.»~, ..~ ~ ~. + ._.,_,_._. _m..,_.... ~ ...... _.. + ... 7 _ _._ i t. pp , ' V t t - ... ~_ ..._ _ _.... ._.. G i ~r _, ~ ~, _ _. - __.,..~ ... ~ t _.....___ __ °- I _ __._ - j u ~ ~ ~~ # (~ Attachment "C" FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No: 07020 INTRODUCTION Tn the matter of an application requesting a Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot to create two parcels. A Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot request is a Type II application review; however this proposal necessitates variances to the flag pole access width requirement, xrziniznum lot width and side yard setback requirements. A Class C Variazace application (File No. 0'1021) has been filed in preparation of this proposal, The subject property is located in an R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W I ID, Tax Lot 300, X83 Pittview Avenue, Applicants: Calvin and Jeannine Lanfear. CPMC 16.36.040 No partition shall be approved in wliicli a flag lot, as defined in this chapter, is created unless: CPMC 16.36.040 (AJ. The parent and flag fot, excluding tl:e flag pole, whether fee title ar an easement, shall comply with the rrrinitrtunt lot size, lot dimension, and setback requirements for the zorring district in which the lots are located; Finding: The parent parcel is a Iong {419. I ft) and narrow (51.9 ft) shaped parcel anal approximately 21,753 square ft. lot area. The minimum lot area in the R-1-6 zone is 5,000 square ft.; the maximum lot area is 9,000 sq. ft with a minimum lot width of 50 ft. Parcel 1's proposed net area of $,040 sq. ft. with a Iot width of 33.9 ft excluding the flag pole access as required by Section 16.36.040(A}, Parcel 2 is 8,999 sq. ft. in lot area with a lot width of 51.9 ft. Finding: The existing dwelling located on proposed Parcel i has a current east side yard setback of twenty-two (22) ft. at the narrowest point from the existing dwelling to the property. This side yard setback would be reduced to four (4} ft. from the dwelling to the driveway access. The R-1, Residential Single-family district, Chapter 17.20, section 17.20.050 of the CPMC requires a minimum interior side yard setback of five (5) ft. and a minimum street side yard setback of ten (10) ft.. Concle~siozz: The proposed Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot as submitted meets the minimumlmaximum lot area but does not meet the R-1-6 lot width dimension and side yard setback requirements. CPMC X 6.36.040 (B) The flag pole shall be nn less than twenty feet wide and paved to private standards as set forth in the Standard Specifications and Uniform Details, City of Central Point Public Wnr•ks Department; 41 Page I of 3 Finding: This partition application proposes aE~ eighteen (1 S) ft. flag pole access easement extending approximately ni~~ety seven (97} ft. a~~d is parallel to an existing dwelling before expanding to twenty (20) ft. in width and extendi~lg an additional 16G ft. (approxitnatcly} to proposed Parcel 2. Conclusion: The proposed Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot partition application as submitted does not meet section (16.36.040(B}, requiring no less than twenty (2Q) ft. wide flag pole easement access. CPMC 16.36.040 (C) No fence, structure, or any otlxer physical obstacle shall be placed within the flag pole; Finding: The flag pole easement is free of any physical obstacle. The proposed easement is parallel to the existing dwelling. A 20 ft. wide flag pole easement would result in an approximate two (2} ft. east side yard setback from the dwelling to the access easenent. Conclusion: A twenty {20} ft. flag pole easement would encroach within the required east side yard setback of the existing dwelling. No structures or any other physical obstacles are found within the proposed flag pole easement. CPMC 1 b.3b. 040 (D) A nraxitrrunt of two (2) lots are allowed access front a flag pole. Finding: Only one parcel, Parcel 2, is proposed to be accessed by the flag pole easement access with this application. Parcel 1 has Pittview Avenue access. Conclusion: The proposed division is for the creation of two lots with one parcel {proposed Parcel 2) utilizing the easement. The partition application meets the standard of this section. CPMC 17 20.020 Permitted uses. Tlxe following uses and their accessory uses are permitted in an R-1 district: A. Single-family dwelling; Finding: The proposed partition is for the creation of two residential parcels. Proposed Parcel 1 has an existing dwelling and Parcel 2 is vacant. Conclusion: The residential use proposed by this partition is a permitted use in the R-1-6 zone district. CPMC 17.20.050 Density, lot area, lot width, dirrresrsiosz, building height, lot coverage, and yard requirements. The density and lot requirerttents of the R-1 zoning district are governed by the subcategories of R-I-6, R-1-8 and R-I-T 0 districts, as delineated on the official boning map of Central Point. Tlie density, lot area, lot rlitnensions, building height, lot coverage and yard requirements Development Requirements R-1-6: Minimum lot area (interior) 5, 000 sq. f~ Maxifrtufn lot area (interior) 9,000 sq. f~ 42 Page 2 of 3 Minir~rurrt lot area (cot•rtej) 7,000sq. ft. Maxirrtunt lot area (cor•rrer) N/A Minirttunt lot width (interior) SO ft. Mirtirrtum lot width (cot•rtet) 60 ft. Mininturrt front yard .20 ft. Minitrtunt side yard (interior) S ft Mininrurn side yard (.street side) 10 ft. Minimum side yard (street side) 10 ft. Maxirrtrrrrt building height 3S ft. Maximum lot coverage SO% Finding: The Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot application proposes the creation of a parcel (Parcel 1) below the minimum interior lot width requirement of 50 ft.. The lot width of proposed Parcel 1, excluding the flag pole access easement as required by CPMC Section 16.36.040(B}, will be 33.9 ft. in width. Finding: The current east side yard setback of twenty-two (22} ft., at the narrowest point, from the existing dwelling to the property line would be reduced to four (4) ft. from the dwelling to the driveway access. Finding: An application for a variance to minimum lot width dimension and side yard setback has been submitted (File No. 07021 }. Finding: Proposed Parcel 1 has a net lot area of 8,040 sq ft. Proposed Parcel 2 has a lot area of 8,999 sq. ft. The minimum lot area of R-1-~i zone is 5,000 sq. ft. with a maximum lot area of 9,000 sq. ft. Conclusion: The proposed Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot application does not meet the SO ft. lot width requirement for proposed Parcel 1. The east side yard setback requirement of 5 ft. cannot be met through this partition application. The lot area far both proposed parcels satisfies the minimum/maximum lot area standard for the R-1-6 zone district. 43 Page 3 of 3 Publlc Warks Department ilf.'v'~Fi4i:. ., icy ;i4 G~N~I11~1L PC3l NT .. ~~~F~~ PUBLIC WORKSS'T~(FFREPORT Decemlaer 4, 2006 i 1 !'~~I~I~~IV~ ~ ~~ Bob Pierce, Direcfar Maff Samitore, Dev. Services Coord. AGENDA ITEIl~: Two Lot Partition for 37-2W-11D, Tax Lot 340 Applicant: Calvin and Jeazuune Laz-zfear Zoning: R-1-6, Residential Single Family Traffic: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (1T1} Trip Generation lvlanual, a two let partition will generate approximately 1.99 peak Maur trips (PHI}. The City of Central Point typically requires traffic studies for any development that generates rrzore than 25 PHI. No traffic study is ~varranted foz• this development. Existing lxafrastructure: Water: There is an existing 8-inch waterline in Pittview Avenue. Storm Drain: There is an existing roadside drainage ditch that flows to the East into a City storzxz drain facility. Street Section: Pittvicw Road is county road, currently paved to a width of twenty-four feet. Engineering and Development Plaxrs and Permits: The Central Point Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and stonn water drainage facilities. In general, the Depaz-tment's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Constnzction" shall govern how public facilities are to be constricted. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifzeations from the Public Works Dcpaz~ment. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile for streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storn~ drainage calculations, storm drainage basin reap, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency noti#ications and approvals. The plan zxzay also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traffic control plan. A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction dz'awings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to tkze public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in fu11 at the tune the Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public 'Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate az~aount of inspection tune to assess the developer. Before the final plat application is processed the developer must pay the relevant inspections fees a~~d bond for arty uncompleted improvenzcnts (as determined by tl~e Public Works Director}. 44 140 Soufh Third Street v,. Central Point, OR 97502 « Q41.664.3321 <~ Fax 541.864.6384 Tssucs: The proposed partition conflicts with a neighborhood circulationx plan that is recatnzxxended by Public Works. The plan contemplates redevelopment of the South side of Pittview Avenue in relatio~zsllip to neiglxborhoad circulation. The proposed circulationx plan is attached. Thez-e is azx existing `Butternut' Tree that is on the southerzx edge of the riglxt-of way. A sidewalk easenxezxt will be required to meander a sidewalk arouztd the tree in order to preserve the root stricture. Conditions of Approval: 1. Pittview Avenue Inxprovezxxents: Developer will be responsible for cozxstructing curb, gutter, and sidewalk and additional pavizxg width to Pittview Avenue for the subject property. Coordination of these improvezxxents will be discussed witlx Public Works Staff and 3ackson County Roads once construction drawizxgs are approved for this development. No Deferred Inxprovezxzezxt Agreezx7ents are allowed for this section of Pittview Avenue. 2. Public Utility Easenxent (PUE): Tlxe developer shall dedicate on the Final Plat a tezx feet wide public utility easement (PUE) adjacent to Pittview Avenue and the private drive. 3. Private Drive: The standard private drive for Central Point is twenty feet. A revised plan will need to be approved by Public Works if Variance application is approved. 4. Fire District Street Rec~uirezx-ents: Fire District No. 3 has cozxxmcnted and stated that the developer shall sprizilcle arty building proposed for Parcel 2 azzd a fire hydrant will need to be installed near the izxtersectian of the private street and Pittview Avenue. 5. Gradin Perznit; Applicant shall otatain a grading permit from the Building Departmezxt prior to any construction occurring. 6. Existing Street Tree -There is an existing butternut tree that is within the right-af-way of Pittview Avezxue. A tree preservation plan and meandered sidewalk easement shall be designed to preserve the tree. 45 140 South Thrrd Street r- Central Point, OR 97502 •641.664,3321 , Fax 641.664.63$4 ... . ~, ... ~' i ~~ ~ o . ~ ; Y ~,; ~, I d d' ^~ . ... ~i, ',~ Y' 1 x „ N, ~ ~ 1 .. ,.{ 1~".' ~', A p ~. p~ ~.;', ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~ ~" , ., . ~.: ~, Y ., + Xti y~,. '~~~~.. { ~ .~ p ~. , ~ . .~. .., ~~ u ~~ ~ n ~, ~ "' ,n n ~ ~„ .,, .,~, ~.. ~,x,„ ,, ~ vr, ., ~~ ., x ., '.i~~~ ' ~;~ ?~.~ ~„ ~, .; ,; , ~ ~µ Me, ,,.tea' u ~ Y ~'~ ~ 'L'o..,.~-rig :~, j ~ .r.x f ,d ~' ~~. ~ ~ ~ ~,m Y f,;..:;,:: y ~, s~". ht W t^ ...,.,; X''..'. ~. fem. ~..,..... ., Cab ~ . 1~ l~ f.n UCI,r~! t t ~~ ~ '. ~, l., s r.~ dkr~?. 4 ~,'. ~ , 4.' ~q~„ d' .,, ,' ,.~,. ~ .w. iwy . ~ ..,,.., 12!28!2665 16:54 8264566 JCFD~ BUS OFG PAGE ~3llE-~17 f"4 i I i~VHM~IV ! ~~iS 7acksan C©unty dire District No. 3 833 Agate Road White City OR 97503-1075 (541) 8~6-71D4 {~oiice) (54~.) 52~~-4x66 (fax) .,: ~'.~9 n.:~ . • °...°....,.t.. - ~ti~rnafivaal/yAccredited - 20D5-20~X 0 ^ecember 28, 21J06 Connie Clume Planner City of Central Point Project # 0702D Lar~fear Partition and variance .After reviewing s larger scale site plan and viewing photos of the proposed project site= the toll©wing conditions shall be required. Dur recommendation is to not approve this project unless all conditions are mat and complied with. IUiany of these type developments have been approved in the past- The requirements were not completed as required with some of these past developments, We are now living with several projects That pose protections and public safety challenges for Fire and EMS providers. We must make sure that all conditions are met and complied with so we reduce the community risk and allow emergency service, utilities, sanitation and other service providers a safe environment #o operate in. • Verify what type of dwelling will be built not proposed on these sites. Explain in detail if these will be one, two, or three story, Disclose the square foot of each dwelling. Any building 30 ft or more in height shall have an approved access lane of 2~ ft width minimum and an approved turn around, • 2p-foot access wid#h is the minimum Oregon Fire Cade access standard, OFC X03.2.1. • Provide and approved tum around as described fi appendix D OFC figure D103.1 Dead end Fire Access, Exceptic,n, to the Turn Around would be td provide throughout automatic fire sprinkler system, approve by NFPA 7 3 residential code standards for parcels 1 and 2. • Install a fire hydrant at the beginning of this access lane and Pitfview Ave. The hydrant location steal{ be within 3p~ feet of the farthest dwelling. • Additiflnal fire flaw and hydrants will be required if the dwellings are more than 3600 sf_ These hydrants shall provide at Least ~'150a GF'M) minimum, • Provide approved sigrrage as required by OFC D103.6 Nv Parking Fire l.ar~e and this shall be ir-i ordinance to be enforced by City Code Authority. (See definition of Fire access OFC 50 which include public, private, parking lots and driveways that access a building.} r~:~.~~~7~ra~p-.._ Moran DFM 4'7 ATTA~HM~NT° "~~.~" :~ ~~~ November 7, 2006 Connie Clune Planner City of Central Point Jackson County Fire District No~ 3 8333 Agate Road :} ~t -.__~ White City OR 97503-1075 (541) 826-71Q0 (voice) (541) 826-4566 (fax) Internationally Accredited - 2005W2010 Project # 07020 Lanfear Partition and Variance The Fire District approves this with the following conditions. • The access to parcel #2 will exceed 150 feet. • Signage "No Parking Fire Lane" will be required along the travel path both sides clearly posted. • If more than 3 dwellings are served by this access, an approved turn around will be required. Exception: They may provide residential sprinkler system to the building(s) in trade for the turn around. • They will reed to verify the location of the closest fire hydrant to this project. Mark Moran DFM 48 ~r~(vy~j~~,, i~hih~~~?,~I' ':i ~~ ~~~~~:~~~~''~ ~,~~.~~~''~~~[ ~d„~~ ~r:?. ~ ~~ I i~ wu~~ ~lh~.~ ~f ~~ ~a~~~~T ~~. ~ .~ ~r€c N[enzeycr, 2'~ 2~•a~c & 37auelapnteist ~725y~~TlRTI' 200 Antelope aasd Whlta CIEy, C?F2 9Y5~33 phsne:(Sat)~74-azsa Pax: (641 } 774-5295 r nicmcyoi~tjackspncac~nty.orq - wnvw.}s GkS 0 t~ c0 u r11y.OrQ .l~~d~ November '17, 20D6 Attention: Connie C[uno , City of Centro[ Point Planning '14Q South Third Street Control Point, OR 97502 , R~: Partit[o~~ off Pittview Avenue - a county-c~aintair€ed section of road. Planning File: 07020 & 07a2'f ; A res[denfial partit[on. Dear Connie; Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this:app[[cation for a partition for Calvin l,anfear, The partition will create two parcels located on t[~e south side of Pittview Avenue west of Marilee Street. Roads and Parks has the following comments: '[ , The applicant shall submit constructior>.drawings to Jackson County Roads and Pants and obtain county permits if requ[red. 2. The applican# shall ob#ain a road approacE~ permit from Roads and Parks 'tor any new or irnprnved road:approac}~ to Pittview Avenue. We recommend shared access. 3. Please note Pittview Avenue has asixty-foot rig[~fi-of-way. Sincerely, ~T~ , Eric Niemeyer, PE Traffic & Development Engineer 49 1:1~i~~{lncor3nglL ovodoprnotitlCITIESICNT~L' PT107020.wpd 4H12d~E~ SUi2vE=YifVU rax:5~t1€~6~t~605 Uct 2U 2U~~6 15:51 N. D2 TEt~TA,.TIVE PLAN A.PPLICAI'ION ilAND nrvistol~*s CfT}'t7X' CEN7R,4I. F'DIA'1'PI.IiNNING 1?EP.~.rC~ENT r- PATE STA~tYEt7 FOIL QFRICE USE QNC,Y ~c ~ ri I. APPLICANT INFORMATION l~Fsme: Calvin aszd dearttune Latafear Address 633 ??ittview Avenue City: Certtrsi Point State: OlZ Zil> Cade: g75Q2 Telephone: Business: (541) 773-7448 Residence: Ce11= (541) 944-4215 2. AGENT INFORMATIOI~I Name: 1Elexbert A. Farber / Farber Surveyittg Address 43I Oak Street ,:~, City; Central Point 5tafe: OR lip Cade: 975Q2 ` Telephone: Business: (541) 6G4-5599 Residence: 3. OWhTER ©F RECORD {Attach Separate Sheet If 1bToxe `T'han One} I~Tame: Calvin A. and 7eanttizte;~. Lanfear Address F.o. Box 1492 _ __ City: M(ed£ozd State: OR Zip Code: 97501 Telephone: Business: ((541)) 773-7908 Residence; Ce11= (541 944.4215 4. PROJECT DESCRIP`T'ION Type of Land Division: Subdivfslon © M#.nor Psrtitf©u ~ Pad r.o# d PUD [] {FUD App entsst be submitted also, wit3t requirMl documents for PLTp) CUP ~ (Tf project is a Canditional Use 1'or zoning- A CLIP App must also be sstbtuitted, atong with required documents) AmeudnaeTZ;t to uppraved plans ~] 'l'owttship: 37 Katzge 2'W Section: 13D Tax hots: 300 Township: Range Section Tax Lats: Township. ~_ Range Sectaoa Tax Lots: ZottvIg IJiytxict: 12.-'1-6 TotAl Acreage: .SQ Acres Type of Stzucture proposed: Single Fantil4Y Detached ®Single ,Family Attached ~ Duplex ^ Multiplex ^ Number o£I~welling Units: 1 Ntune of 3~evelopment NIA s. REQUIREI} pocu~NTs ~ This application form r,~ Application fee {See Cturent Pee Schedule) ~ 10 copies o£Tet~tative Platt d Written authority ftotzt l'roperiy Owner if Agent in application process. ~ One copy of plan reduced to 8 '/x" x 11" Q Title report on subdivision guazantee ~. Y HEREBY STATE ~'HAT'l'HE FACTS REr.AT)ED l:N THI:, A.S(3VE APPLICA'I'Ipl1T AIVT) THE I'l;Al`IS AIVI3 D4CUlVIEIV'I'S SUUIVDI'TED )`TEREWITI-~ ARIv TRTJE, CORItIaC'i' AND ACCIIRATT Tt]'THE BEST OF IYrY KNO'W,LRDG~, l certify tltat l am the: [~ Property O~vneT or ® A,utharized Agent of the Owr),er of the prOpo9ed ~TO~`E')CC SitB. Signature / ~ ~ Rate D ~ ° le~' ~ It' Any w•etlau~s exist ott the site, It is the applicnntt's respotasit~ilitY to xppi}' foT a permit ro pivision of Stare lands before anv site ~vurk he tts. RO)t I'r,ANIVING D1vI'ARTl~'IEN~' UST: ONLY Application Accepted as Complete On: 120`s day of Lazed Use of L.inrited Laud Use Decisioa; j Land Use Ct;se File A7utnber: ~ UPDNFpftnfit,GrsCCLP71NGY0UR~fPNLIC:iTIONPHEFLLVh'1NGDEP~IR7Td~'h'Tl3'ILLMA1GdCOPYOFTHI.'SFORtf 7t7 YOU. Rc~iae:! August Vl, 2L~t#a 50 ~~~~f 1N1V1~~ I tc ~.. ri PLGL97i:AF:o PROFESS1o1rA.L LAND BVRVtY[7A `] /~ pAEGON JJiY ]6, 39fl~ In5&~2109rAR6Ek AEkLwAL DATE ,2-71-pT - ...-_ -.-.~ y~,--~ , - R W t -~-~----~-'wo- x°o 1e.m / 1 N f.p ~ I / I M , / ~ I EXISF7NG l S , D vreLtrrdc u ti 3~2~rlro I `~ P TAX L(3T 401 arl CAYCRETE I `" PAD I v ~^,~ r I }` o ~ ` Proposed { ~ Parcel 1 ~ N CRps$ NIEA 1p75A sQ.n. 1 'e LE55 EA5[uERT p A]1A s4 n. I 14l AREA ` ao.p scx I I a O~ ~- v -_. I I 1 I ~ -C I I p k _ ZY } I o q ~ I I I Tp.DO 51 g0 372SN11 D Proposed Porcel 2 n TAX LOT 40Q .. d999 sq-n _ T~NTATrV~ PLAT LANQ PARTl7rOfJ loceled in SOUR-LEAST QUARTER OF S~CT70N 11 7DHNSNfP 37 SOUTH, RANG£ 2 M€ST fMf_L.AMETTE MERIDIAN, CITY Of CE~lTRAI. Pp'NT, JACKSON COUNTY, OREGON f for CALVJN and JEANNlNE LANF"~'AR R.O apx rase MfDFORD. ORECpN g>SDi SITUS b63 PfTTViEFY A~NU[ c~NrRAr. PO1hrT, DRCCOra s7soz -rv --.--Ea~ 5pg'$i0 E -," =„"-`rUITTVre~ ~ ~~.~ .... _ _~, 185 .-moo.--=two-ivr-nm-we--m ~~ arr, r9c nc---_ _ RAY/ 957'05"IY 1p3.dp LEGEND 9 - ramp 2 r/z' aaASS DAP -smear eEP rEauNE 3724v1 ~D o - ramp s/d" rza+ al>•. a.~,5 ziav TAX LOT 20L1 ® - YA~>r' FiRL KrpRANT H YArER vAL YE rao-~co - BvRarEp r.1>=R a-9s SAIL'rARY sT'Ynr O r yldrA4Y sEw»e umltrf e - FOYER PC[E F-- : GDY YLYE m--n r pS~ERHEAp aDwER [n-'-ECP a [DLF CF PAVE1r?Nr AK-T~ - 7i3P BACK NRS m-50 r STp43r fMAm n3T3A.5~ SPOT ELEVA AAY -BADS CF BCARNp 15 mUC NCRnI, HAD dJ/4~ DA NV, A5 pE'R11Ea 6Y C.OSAL PpSf ripNY/L 5T$1Ek C6SERYATIQYS. m -RECORD 5r/R VEY 6A TA I$ Sf1DYN W PARENIHC515 ApJACF1;T ID k£ASpRCp ~ SLRt SEY pA TA 1BrEPE APP(fpAIX.E rnrsr. No. - msmuuprr rtA.reETt A5 +rECDFOEp w p+e pmnnt REtazos Of JACKSON C[4N R', OREC0.N -P(/E - PuBUC UrU rr EASLVb+r YCR fl'A TCR, SANITARY sExER, $Tp4k ~ DRAIN, PNLWE, GAS. ANp CA$.£ rV. 0 No rEs 6 -- WE r0 LAt!( pF EIf VAnpY [NANCE. S~Or ELE vApp:S .VIE SMJW,Y - rprAL ACR£ACE - .Sp ACRE$ {2 ~. >5< 54. fY.) - PARDEl 1 r{7rAL AC LACE - i2]S4 50, fr - ACCESS LA SE31El1F ALYtEAOE . ~yrf 5R. fl. - P~FCEE T IprAL ACREAGE x d999 sd. D. vrcrNrTY nrA~ Nor ro scnte HOAKlNS Rd. ~ 1 ~ r 4 f t ~ ExlSnrac ~\ f ' 5 ~Y ~- 5.0 FDOT P.UE _ / SL955.2B"E- 4z A3 5196 u8g'$5'2d'w ~- ~~Of~EST GLE PHASE 1 V 372k'IiDA }72Wr IDA 37215'IiDA 372w%iDA {{ 37715"IDA TAY. LOT 234 7AX LOT 233 TAX LOT 732 ~ TAX COT 23r I TAX L0T 2J0 ssessaes yAP >vo. s7zx7ro--soo Sheet r of 1 IV L Surveyed by FARBEFt de SONS, lNC. dba FAF?$FR SURI~YING (ter) ss4--~.sss P p. BOX 528E 431 OAY. 5T. CENTRAL POINT, OREGOr'7 97502 scALE: 1` = 30' D' IS 30' 60" 720' OA FE.' MARCH ifi, 2Gb6 1Cd3 NO: t3B<-p5 D~4AW,r:L FtIC: JOpS\CENTRAL PD:h'T\Pf FTYrw~xiiEG[35'J!t ~.~'r\S~rE_yAP,pA~. .9~A~~~~~IMI~~~ (6~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION TO DENY A MINOR LAND PARTITION, FLAG LOT TO CREATE TWO PARCELS Applicants: Calvin and Jeannine Laxzfear. (37 2W I1D Tax Lot 300} 683 Pittvie~v Avenue WHEREAS, the Applicants have submitted applicatian for a Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot Section 16.36.040 of the City of Central Point Municipal Code on approximately 21,753 square feet property identified by Jackson County as Account Number 1-020273- 0 in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on January 2, 2007, at a duly noticed public hearing the City of Centz-al Point Planning Commission considered the Applicants' request for a Minor Land Partition, Flag Lot applicatian; and WHEREAS, the property is currently zoned R-1-6, Residential Single Family; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to Flag Lots partition. Section 16.36.040, R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district Section 17.20.050 of the Central Point Municipal Cade; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicants' request it is the Planning Cazxzrrzission's determination that the Application does not comply with the applicable standards and criteria as set forth in the Staff Report (Exhibit "A") dated January 2, 2007; now therefore SE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission City of Central Point, Oregon by this Resolution No. hereby denies the Application based on the findings and conclusions of denial as stated in the Staff Report (Exhibit "A") dated January 2, 2007. 52 Planning Commission Resolution No. (11212007) PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this day of January, 200'1. Planning Commission Cl~zair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this day of January, 2007 Planning Commission Chair 53 Planning Commission Resolution No. {1/2/200'1) N[~sc~~~,~~~avs City of Central Point, Oregon 140 So.Third 5t., Central Paint, ar 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.b384 www.ci.central-point.or.us December 27, 2006 CERTIFIED MAIL -RETURN RECEIPT RE{~UESTED Brad Parmenter 1610 Jasmine Avenue Medford, OR 97501 Dear Mr. Parmenfer; Planning Department Tom iaumphrey,RiCP Comm~snity l~eveloprnent Director/ Assistant City Administrator It has xecently come to the City's attention that during site work an your Lone Redwood Grove project that the existing Zane redwood has been seriously damaged. Attached is a copy of the City Arbarist's report on the damage and condition of the lone redwood. Per Section 12.36.020(b) the tree is subject to the City`s tree ordinance which by approval of the tentative plat for the Lane Redwood Grove subdivision encouraged preservation of the redwood tree. By this letter and in accordance with the conditions of approval and Section 12.3b Trees of Central Point Municipal Code, you are requested to provide a written mitigation plan within ten (10) working days from receipt of this letter. The mitigation plan shall be prepared by a certified arborist and address all concerns noted in the attached City Arborist's report. If it is your intent to remove the tree, it wiII be necessary that you have a certified arborist provide a written report stating reasons for xemoval per Section 12.36.050, and file a tree removal permit. Before any tree can be removed, the tree removal permit must be approved by the Planning Commission. 54 Brad Parrr~enter December 27, 2005 Page 2 1£ you have any questions regazding the above, please call nee at (541) 564-3321, ext. 259. Sincerely, Don Burt, AICP, EDFP Planning Manager DB:dt Enc. ~~ INTEROFFICE MEMO TO: DiDi Thomas FROM: Pat Randall RE: Lone Redwood Site - 1015 North 10i~' Street Central Point, OR Public ~/orks Department Bob Pierce, Director Chris Clayton, Deputy Director The construction which has taken place an this property has damaged the "Lane Redwood". There has been earth. grading too close to the tree. Limbs have been broken off. Root damage is obvious, and above ground they are exposed and skinned. The soil around the tree has been seriously compacted by vehicle travel and excavation. There has been no Tree Protection Zone or Root Protection Zone established. The tree health is being compromised and is showing serious signs of distress, such as chlarosis, less hydration in -the green canopy than normal, and a wilting of limbs. Steps need to be taken to preserve this tree, or it will fail. It should be examined by an ISA Certified Arborist, and a plan implezxzented to return this tree to a healthy state. Pat Randall ISA Certified Arborist City of Central Point Public Works Dept. 5fi