Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Planning Commission Packet - November 7, 2006
c~Nrtt~~~ RtJiP~l' PLt~?`N,'dlJ~'t~~ ~'t3iVJI~~l~~1tJ( .-~t~~~,~d~1-A ~o~~~_~~~k~c;x- '~,100~ - 7:00 p.cx~, ~~c~.t Planning ('t~u~n~i~si,art ResalutiaT~ Na, '710 I. MEETING CALLED T(J- t) dt ~ l~: l~ Jl. ROLL CALL Cannie Mac~-gerr~ha, Candy Fish, Damian ldzarty Chink Piland, Wayne Ries, Pat Beck, and Mike O1 fiver III» CO P`tJNDENCE IV» MINUTES A, Review and appraval of Octaber 3, 2006 Planning Cammissian Minutes f la L~}..£8 N1JAJk.F F'gs. ~ - 5 A. 1~'ile Na» 050+61. A public meetial~ to cansider a request far extensiatx of Gabbard Village, a Planned Unit Dev~ac~pz~~cnt. Applicant: Gabbard Village, LLC Pgs. t - 22 B, File No» 07014. A public hearing to cansider the creation afnine (9) attached sin~lu 14~mily residential lets located northwest afHamrick Read, TIYe property is identifi~.d ozz the Jackson. County Assessor's map as 37 2W 01CB, Tai Let 9005 APN# 10195531. The physical. address of the subject property is 4439 Hamrici: Read, Applicanf: Wisnavsky Names, LLC (Robert VJisnavsky) VII. MISCE]IJLANEC?US pg~. ~~ - 4o A. Considc~~<~tian after amendments far stealth antennas B. Urban Growth Boundary Expansion Update C. Regional Problem Salving Update VII» ADJ4U MENT RCi ra~o~ City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes October 3, 2006 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Connie Moczygemba, Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, Damian ldiart, Wayne Riggs, Pat Beck, and Mike Oliver were present. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director; Don Burt, Planning Manager; Connie Clune, Community Planner; Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician; and Dzdi Thomas, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE There was correspondence pertaining to item C on the miscellaneous agenda. IV. MINUTES Chuck Piland made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 5, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Pat Beck seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; ldiart, yes; Oliver, abstained; Beck, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. Prior to the commencement of business items on the agenda, Community Development Director, Tom Humphrey, introduced and welcomed newly appointed Planning Commissioner Mike Oliver, and newly hired Community Planner, Connie Clune. VI. BUSINESS A. File No. 07013. A public hearing to consider a Zone Map Amendment for the purpose of completing a housekeeping task that with the creation of Hamrick Business Park, Plarrnirrg Com»rissiat Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 2 created a split zoning parcel. The subject property is located approximately 25% within C-4, Tourist & Office Professional zoning district and approximately 75% within a C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial zoning district. It is identified a~i the Jackson County Assessor's neap as 37 2W O1C, Tax Lot 803, and is located on the south side of East Pine Street, west of Table Rock Road, and east of S. Hamrick Road. City of Central Point, Applicant. There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose. Planning Manager, Don Burt, presented the staffrepart, noting that the subject property is located approximately 33% within the C-~ zoning district and 67% in the C-5 zoning district. Mr. Burt recapped the history of the property as set Earth in the staffreport and stated that it was appropriate and consistent with the comprehensive plan to move the zoning boundary line. Les Schwab Tire Company previously presented a site plan for Planning Commission review and the lot line adjustment is necessary to locate the business in a GS zoning district. Mr. Burt indicated that the owners of the property were agreeable to the proposed zone change. The public portion of the hearing was opened. No one camp forward to speak far or against the proposed lot line adjustment. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Damian Idiart made a motion to adopt Resolution 708 recommending approval of the zone change from C-4 to C-5 on the 'westerly portion of property located on the south side of East Pine Street, west of Table Rock Road, and east of S. Hamrick Road (Jackson County Assessor's snap 37 2W O1 C, Tax Lot 803} based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Chuck Piland seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Idiart, yes; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. B. File No. 07008. A public hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit application for the purpose of occupying and operating a chiropractic office located within the Mt. View shopping center. There is currently a physical therapy office located in the same suite. The physical therapy office is moving to a larger suite within Mt. View Plaza. The subject property is located in C-~, Tourist & Office Professional zoning district and is identified on the Jackson County Assessors map as 37S 2W 02D, Tax Lot 1200. The address is 1.21.7 Plaza Boulevard, Suite F, and is located east of Freeman Road, and south of East Pine Street. Jared Dance, Applicant. There were no conflicts or ex parte communications to disclose except that Damian Idiart recused himself from discussion and voting on this application as the applicant was a personal friend of his. Lisa Morgan, Planning Technician, presented the staff report, indicating a change of location to Suite E of the Mt. View shopping center. Planning Cornrnission Minutes October 3, 2006 Page 3 The public portion of the hearing was opened. Dr. Jared Dance came forward and explained to coznznissioners that he desired to open a chiropractic business at a location next door to office space previously occupied by a physical therapy office. He stated that his practice would be similar in nature, signage and tz-aff c. The public portion of the hearizag was then closed. In response to a question raised by Wayne Riggs, Tom Humphrey explained that a conditional use permit was being required of Dr. Dance due to the clinical nature of his business. Ordinarily, "professional business" would more likely refer to a law office or bookkeeping service. Chuck Piland made a motion to adopt Resolution 709 granting a Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a chiropractic office within the Mt. View shopping center located at 1217 Plaza Boulevard, Suite E (Jackson County Assessor's map 37S 2W 02D, Tax Lot 1200) based on the standards, findings, conclusions and recommendations stated in the staff report. Wayne Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; Oliver, yes; Beck, yes; Piland, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. VII. MISCELLANEOUS Snow Butte Station Tom Humphrey presented a report to commissioners recounting the historical origins and initial building plans submitted by owner Cz-is Galpin for the Snowy Butte Station project. The original subdivision plans were for the construction of townhouses and have since been changed to single- storybuildings in order to create attractive living for seniors. The units would share a common roof structure, and the owner has designed unique architectural features for each of the individual entrances. In addition, the design of the structures has created more privacy and additional yard space for each unit. Front setbacks are just different enough to be distinctive. The puzpose for discussing this project with the Planning Commission was to make certain they were comfortable with the intent of the development prior to beginning construction on the newly designed dwelling units. A homeowners association has been planned for and Mr. Galpin is investigating options for creative senior housing subsidies. Commission members discussed ownership of the units, color schemes and design criteria. Consensus of opinion was to encourage the developer to emphasize individual characteristics for each unit, including painting each unit a different color so that the project doesn't end up resembling an assisted care facility. ~'larrning Canrnission Minutes October 3, 200b Page 4 White Hawk Estates Tom Humphrey advised commissioners that this partieuIar PUD development located on Beebe Road received Planning Commissian approval in July of 200. Subsequent to that time, sail contamination was discovered on the property. Developer Mike Duncan has been working with state and local agencies to acquire approval to proceed with construction plans. Extensions have been granted administratively, and the developer has agreed to keep the Plannia~g Department apprised of project status. Mr. Humphrey will continue to keep the Planning Commission infar~ned of activity on this development. Regional Problem Solving Update Tom Humphrey distributed a handout reflecting current activity associated with the City's proposed Urban Growth Boundary expansion. The first page of the handout was comprised of a map of the Urban Reserve Areas for the City of Central Point. Page two of the handout was a summary of comments from various state agencies pertinent to each of the Urban Reserve Area designations into which the City proposes to expand. The comments on the summary sheet were limited to either "recommended", "not recommended", or "conditionally recommended". Mr. Humphrey reviewed the comments with commissioners and explained that as we prepare to adjust the Urban Growth Boundary, certain areas were more likely to be included than others. TX. ADJOURNMENT Chuck Piland made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Damian Idiart seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the October 3, 2006 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on November 7, 2006. Planning Commissian Chair C~I~F3HARD ~Ii~LAC I~ ~XT`I~I~ISI4I`I ~, i ~l. r icllif~il~~i~~ ~.~i_:~.IiiililiC'iil f ~•; c __ ~. c ~,w _ e .. gyp' ~..,._ ~ ~,_ . ;~_.. f t :ti ~~., ; ~..,~7C`, ~.i.; ..iji(° ..(.{)II1~ I 1 X71 i"t`( I(711 Nov~'t»1~t:r 7, 2446 APPLICATION ITEM; FILL 1'v~). OStl61 ~ae6rh~t~~d Vi114~~t• Consideration ofrequest far ext~i~ ,icrra o~ ~c~lrarrl Villa~c Planrr~a<I ~~trit ~~~ cl~~tatrrc~aC Applicant: Gebhard Village, LZ.,C STAFF SOURCE: . Lisa Morgan, Planning Teclxr~ici<rn Z3~C~+~RCJUND: ~3y l~~solution No, 659 dated. Jul~r 5. '?405 the Planrrir~~ Crrr~~anission apprcwc~i G~hlrartl Vil~a~c I'iar~rred Lhiit Development, a 7.43 acres r~esidcntial develapnrcrrt r~~ur~?riticd af63 rs~sidt~ntial hats i~ar~ dctac~~;d single..family duplex, faun-plex and six-plex owner acctrpie~l units. Zn accor~l<uicc ~-itl~ ~~~;tio» 17.68.064 a final developmcx~t plan must be hlecC r~,~itl~ the City v~~ithin six (6) mr~r~ths. The ~xl~iration date for the PUD was Ja~~uary 5, 2045, Section 17.68.060 contain., pa•ovisions for extending, with gaol crrtrse, fi}~e dc~dlirlc: fo~~ submittal of a Iir~al development plan for a hcriod of six. (6) months. (fin Decerraher- 26, 244 ~lri extc~~si<>ir u~ts ~rpi,r~oved extending the expiration date to ,Zu1y 5, 2446. The e~tcr~sion'~Gas a~Imillistrativ~ly ~ran~ed by staff. The basis for the extension was to allow the applicant ad~.litiv~~a1 time to res~al~ ~ clesigri ar~ci c~iw~ironmentt~i issues. C)n June 24, 2006 a second written request felt extension was submitted, The basis for this extension request was to continue the allowance ofaclclitiar~al time to resolve design and environmental issues. Although no formal action has yet bee~~ talzer~ on this extension the request was suhrnitted in a timely manner and is a valid request. Zf granted tl~u revised expiration date would be Januar} 5, 2007,. C?n July 24, 2406 the applicant submitted an application for final plan and final plat approval. FINDINGS: Conditions affecting the original approval of Gebhard Village PUD have not changed. ISSUES: As a result o recent amendments to the City of Central Point Municipal Cade all authority far the review and approval of planned unit developments, as a Type ZZZ application, rests with the Planning Commission, \\Serverailla\pl\2005 Land Use Files\05461 Gebhard Village-Tent. Flan\Firraf Pict extension staff'Report r r070fi.doo~Tel~llard 'pillage PAD Extension Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment "A" -Request for extension letter dated December 26, 20QS. Attachment "B" -Request for extension letter dated June 20, 20QC~. Attachment "C" -Public Works Memo dated October 2~, 20QE. ACTION: Consider request for an extension. RECOMMENDATION: Approve request for a six (6) month extension. IlServerzilla1p112005 Land Use Files105061 Gebhard Village-Tent. PlanlFinal Plat extension Stat~'Report t 107D6.docGebl]ard Vlllage PUD Extension Page 2 of Z RBER 5 U R V E Y 1 N G ATTACHMENT " ~ '" • FARBER & SONS, INC. • POST OFFICE BOX 5285 • CENTRAL POINT, OR 97542 • • OFFICE • 431 OAK STREET • CENTRAL Pornrr • December 26, 2005 Lisa Margan Flanning Department 140 South Third Street Central Paint, Chegan 97502 Re: Gabbard village-Fite Na. 05061 Lisa, Due to the volume of work in progress and as agent far Eric Artner Construction, Inc., on this project a hereby request a 6 month extension for submitting the final PUD Plan. ~ would also litre to set up a meeting in the third week of January to review Final Develapme~rt Plan and road construction needs for Gebhard Road. We would like to see if SDC fees aze available if we build the full street cross section being our half plus curb and gutter an the opposite side? This will impact ow civil drawing which are being worked on at this time. Respectfully, Herbert A Farber cc: Artner Construction, Inc Central Point Public Works ,< • HI~RB~RTA. FARB~R PRESIDENT/SURVEYOR .SUSAN M. FARBER $USINESS MANAGER. PHONE: 54 9-664-5599 • FAX: 541-664-5643 ATTACHMENT " ~~ " llllat#11ew J. Small Architect & Planner 385 Cherry Lane Ashland, OR 9752Q (541)944.6453 cl. dune 2a, 20Q6 Lisa Morgan Planning Department 140 South 't'hird Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: Gebhard Village-File No. ©5461 ~e~~ ~ ~~~ J u,v ? o ~~c~ CITY o~ ct*NrRAi. P4iN't Lisa, Aue to the volume of work in progress and as agent for Eric Artner Construction, lnc., on this project 1 hereby request a 6 month extension For submitting the Final 1'UI7 Plan. Should you have questions or concerns please contact one by calling 2459448. Respectfully, ~~' U Matthew .~ al[ cc: Farber Surveying Central 1'nint Public Works :, Public Works Department CENTRAL Pt~INT { r ~;3 ATTACHMENT" ~ Bof~ Pierce, Director Maff Samitore, Develapment Services Pub.Lt'c T-Yorks De artment MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: MATT SAMITORE SUBJECT: GEBHARD VILLAGE CIVIL IMPROVEMENT DRAWINGS DATE: OCTOBER 24, 2006 Planning Department: The Public Works Department has reviewed the premliminary Givil Improvement drawings far the Gebhard Village Planned Unit Development. The applicant's engineer is currently making the design changes needed to comply with City, Fire District #3 and Jackson County development standards. We hope to have a final set of plans approved by the end of November 200b. 140 Soufh Third Street =Central Poinf, OR 97502 0 541.664.3321 ~ Fax 549.664.63&4 w~S~~VSKY ~ r ,a,= i ~;i~llll~~~~ ~~.t<'~:,~I Li~il_;i~l. I ~ ia~ ,'~ iii ~ iix,°.a:it~~i~ S 1t ~ ~° ~~ A~ ~~I Val 1 Irltwci»hcr "7, 2006 APt''~ICATTC?1~I1'Ti?,I~'~: 1~'11.,~? ~~~. 01i1~~ 7'cYrt<~t~it~c~ 1'lax~i Iwh~~liCFitir-rt Public hearing to cansiri~xr the c~~.atian o9~a ~~ine (9j atta~hc{i si»~~lc (i~mil~ r~~~<luntial li>ts ftac~ittxi northwest afH~arick 1~~-ad. Property is id~;i~tif icti ~~n the Jacks~~ty Ct~nn1,~~ ,~ssc°ss~)r'~ ~~~~i~~ as >~; ~~W 01CB, Tax Lat 900, .~1'Njf 1019531, The physical at~t}ress al'tl~~.e subject propcl`ty is 443 C I.u~~ric1< Read. Applicant: Wisllavsky Haines} LLC STAFF S©URCE: ~, ~~`" _.__. ___._ _. _w___..~-___ _ Lisa Morgan, Planning Tcclini~ i ~ ~ ~~ ,,,,_~,} BACKGRt7UND: The subject property was successf~liy annexe cl rota city limits under City Council. Resolution I'~a. 1122y in September, 2006, The property is zoned R-2, Residential Two Family and carisi tits of approximately 1...03 acres, As stated in the annexation staff' ~~cp<~t~t dated August 1, 2006, all necessary urban services are available to the property and are adequate in capacity to s~rvic;e development afthe praperky at. R-2 densities, There is anticipated growth. as well as current develapment in the immediate vicinity of the subject property, The City determined that it was appropriate to consider a Draft Circulation Plan proposed far general circulation. far the vacant lands south of Beebe Road. The applicant's tentative plan is consistent with the recommended proposed Draft Circulation Plan. FINDINGS: Refer to Attachment "C". ISM U 1~~Sa The ~ollawing issues have been Hated during the review of this~application, 1. During the annexation process, Tacksan County recommended a right inI right out ingress/egress ante Hamrick. Road. (See Attachment "~3~') The Tentative Plan application does Hat identify that. Public Works is in concurrence with .lacksan County Reads for the right inJ right out ingresslegress ante Hamrick Road and would like to see a "park: chop'" configuration mitigate this. {See Attachment "D") 2. In the findings {Attachment `~C") it is Hated that at time ofthe Site Plan review that the ap~~licant will need to address an-street parking. Although the street is wide enough to acccainrnadate on-street parkingi the eventual presence of driveway aprons will greatly Wisnavsky Haines Tentative Plan Page 1 of 2 compromise the availability of on-street parking. 'lyhc City does not have standards far off-street parking and with the trend toward narrow lots and attached dwellings this is becoming an issue. 3. Fire District 3 has requested that the temporary turnaround be located o~~ the property to the north. Final location of the temporary turnaround has to be deferred to f nal plat approval and subject to Fire District 3's approval. Note: The property to the north is not in the city limits, therefore, the city does not have jurisdiction over said property. Fire District 3 has noted that if this could not be accomplished the present proposed tuns around will work. (See Attachment "F"} ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment "A" -Tentative Plan Attachment "B" -Jackson County Road Comments Attachment "C" -Planning Department Findings Attachment "D" -Public Works Staff Report Attachment "E" -Building Department Staff Report Attachment "F" -Fire District # 3 Comments Attachment "G" -Planning Department Conditions of Approval Attachment "H" -Proposed Resolution ACTION: Consider approval for a Tentative Plan application to create a nine (9) attached single family lot subdivision. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Tentative Plan application per Staff Report dated November 7, 2006 including all attachments and exhibits to create a nine (9) attached single family lot subdivision. ,~, Wisnovsky Homes Tentative Plan Page 2 of 2 HALF STREET IM •R4VEMENT ~ STANDARD RESIDENTIAL L DCAL STREET w~=----'- ----~-_ _._ 3 E •=~ G ! A ~ - Y N PRifNUS J ~ - i E a F[R 1` ^' :,_~ ?6 -.j.0 `ti w ~ r X5.0 . C' € Ot~C.O 30.0 3 30.0 30.0 15. _ 2S~- ~~w_____..___~ --._..._ ..- ~_____~_- _ -- ---'--._ .-_~_m ___----- E ---- .. ..._W__v _____ T ~ . _ ..... - E.., - ._. ... ._ .W ~_;~ ~__ i€ I ~ I I ! ~ ~--~ - i I~ I I I I ~ ; o - 1~ a I I ~~ r1+ Y w^- -,14" ;~PRUNUS (GOOD) .~ ~ •krif ~ F"KISrG rRE~ ro Bt' ~~rA1Ne~ " ! C ' qI ~ C ~ ° E ' .~ i ~? I € C, E p I ~--"~ E 3 , ~ ~ ~ . ~ O r I PFUNUS (GOOD} ~ w.,r ` C 1 `,~" 'G P I~ 'n I ' ^• €Di O j E ~ 1 LOT 9 LOT 8 L4T 7 I ~ I :LOT 6 LOT 5 { I 3 551 SF 3 029 SF 3 790 SF I ~ - 3 710 SF ' 3 18D SF! T 0 - P l.E I ~ L~~~31 ~ I I I L4T 2 I I r Qa LOT 1 ~ I ' ~ .- ~ . l•-~ A ~ ~~~ ' ~ I ~ . v , ., . Exrsr•~ r~~~:, . ro 5F 2~f~d~ i; r ~ I, ~' 1.3,180 SF , 3, 98D SF I 13,180 SF 4,1Q5 SF I { o ~ ~ (r 11 ~ I I I I i 13 I I'~ i ~ j~ /~ ~; : I 1 I~ E I !~ 3~.~:. _- aa.o ~s.o o.a ~ ~o.0 3a.a 3a.c ~ ao.o - _____ (EAST 330.0 7D G ) rEfdPO,2A1~Y TUi2NAP.OJ~V~ rp W It ! ~i'.~=J ! J ! f'; 1t~W S 1 ~ ~c ~ ~ ~a• Raw F-.rs' roc r r°c ~-~---- I I 2o"--y I x~~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ STAND~Rp LOCAL STREET ~~i'~s ...~.~ wr ro :ccc AA~WURY LAN@ 372U:f02~ iQb v,tA~-~uAR~ sEc~ES I;\c City; C-4 SIN 3 m [ w' PROPOSED TREE PLAN HAMRIGK GLEN 9-LOT PAD L0T SUBDIVISION Located Ort Tax Loi 9oD of The N. 3N t/4 of the S. W. 7/4 of SEC. i, T.37S., R.2W., W.M. ~~ ~ ~'' ~ / € 1 US C,OOD f I ( ) II #€ -. _. .: 1 ~ I ~t l i i „ I ^~_. dR9 ~: '~A A.~ 7 .. ~. 1 l~ 1~ . ~ ~~ ~ ~ I f New r.~~E /sGER RU6~ur~r lREp MAPLE! ~:L T' AGER PLA5;AN01DE5 IIJdI:.'/AY MAPLE! `~< d~ O~ ~ 1 ~; ~~° . w ~~ i O ~ (V ~ ~~v rJn (` V U ~ ° ~ O T Q ~ M~ ~$~F ~`~¢~~ ~o~: m ~ o~~ .^. ..~Fmt E iP~~ ~~ ~E~ ~1 ~,~" Zzr" nlor~ sr,~~~r TREES rnf ~.An~pscAP~ ,..: ' ~~ ~, 5 rR IFS urlc ~ ~~ vrA rr=~1=G r-f; or~~ r~-r~ ~~ W ° ~, ADJOIN11~16 LOr'S 5Ph'lnfKLFR SY5TE1d ~f/J~d,fa~ BY [TRIP lRkIGkTlOAr II// 0 t0 20 4tl 80 ~{f1'STE11 .~ i~ ih FEET SCklE. :'=70' .cCkT£ f,'ngineerng does nat ci:hcr ti e.epressly cr by demarcphbr+ on These p`~~ 1~~ plans establish or dpf~repte !ne vorfo~s }`~ ,p ///JJJ''' BaR SS pvE fNCN f1n' property, r+ghl-of-way, and easement Of;fLfNRL -Fa:~ING houndonps. 7hi5 dr6wrnq 31~0~ld be u,ed o +a r !or pfpnning purposes on y. Property lrc ~Np Ir ny71 [,v[ INCH LW Daupdor.CS lrprp recorded fCgol II1fS SN-EI RDJlIST d<SCnpfipn5 end ConS!~irc:ion dwgg On'y. SLa_ES kCClIR-Il.CLY ~5!23I2005 07;45 15417745295 TpGI<r~N CI_q_INTV PA'S ~~~'l~~~~ es JACKSON COUNTY xonds May 13, 20D5 Attention: Lisa IVlorgan City of Central Point Planning 155 South Second Street Central Paint, 4l~ 97502 RE: Annexation off Hamrick R©ad - a county-rr~aintained road. Planning File: 0506Ct; 372W01 CB Tex Lot 900, Dear Lisa: Itaads PAGE !31 /f~1 ~,44 uric Nieme}~cr, P~ TraRc ~ TJrtirlvp~rvcnt Erv,~ineNr 2{)0 Antatvpe Rand wh~ra city, o~: g7~o3 Phona: (541 } 774•i3230 Fax:{541}774.6295 nlemeyel~a jzchsonawnry.arg vlvnv.J3Ck30ncvunjy. crg Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this application for the Jakabosky Annexation. Roads and Parks has the fo![ouving comments: ~l. When the property is developed, the applicant shall suE~mit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads and Parks and obtain county permits if required. 2. Jackson County Roads and Parks would like to review and camt-nent on the hydraulic report, including the caiculatioris and drainage plan, for any development on tl~e subject property. Capacity improvements rsr on site detention, if necessary, shall be installed at the expense of the applicant. ~. Jackson County Roads and Parks recommend right in and right out ingress and egress to Hamrick Road. 4. The annexation should also include Hamrivk Road right-of-way. The Board of County Commissioners Order Nv. 6-99, atfopted the 7th day of January, 1999, recommends that the city request road jurisdic#ion and annex the entire road right-of,way, pending amendment of the Urben Grflwth Boundary Management Agreement. 5. Please note that I--larrtrick Road (Counfiy Arterial) is acounty-maintained road. The Average Daily Traffic Count fifty yards north of Biddle Rvad was 14,654 on June 2003. if you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me afi 774-523©, Sinter ly, ~~~ ~~~ E c Niemeyer, PE Traffic ~ I3evefopment Engineer I:lEngineeril~gll]evalopmentlCITIE51CN7RLPT1o506p,tivpd ATT~CHII~~N~ " ~ Planning Department Findings Purpose: Cox-szdexatiozt of a Tentative Plan Application for a nine (9) lot subdivision known as Hamrick Glen Applicant: Wisnovsky Homes, LLC File No. 07014 CPMC 1.6.1.0.010-.16.20.090 -Relating to Submission of application and filing fee; Application and Review; scale; general information; existing conditions; additional information; partial development; explanatorr~ information, tentative plan approval; and conditions an tentative plan approval. Findings: The applicant has submitted all the necessary information relevant to reviewing a tentative plan application. Conclusion: The application was deemed complete an October 16, 2006. CPMC 1 x:24.010 - Purpose µ The purpose of fire R-2 district is to promote and encourage a suitable environment for family life at a slightly lziglrer densitr~ than that permitted in the R-1 district, and also to provide opportunities for the development of lower cost duplex and attached dxvellings. Where this district is applied to areas of existing single fanzil~ homes, the intent is to preserve the lozv densitr~ neighborhood character, promote continued Izome maintenance and rehabilitation, and allows replacement housing at slightly higher densities that is compatible zvit]z the overall cluzracter of the neighborhood. Findings: The applicant has met the purpose of the R-2 zoning district by proposing attached single family homes (pad lots). The proposal is compatible with the development fihat has occurred iri the immediate vicinity. This subject property is located on the west side of Hamrick Road, across from Beebe Woods. Beebe Woods consists of all attached single family dwelling units. Conclusion: The applicant has satisfied the purpose of the R--2, Residential Two Family zoning district. CPMC 17..24.040 -Height Regulations - No building or structure shall exceed thirtr~ five feet in height in an R_2 district. Findings: This is a tentative plan application and would not be addressed through the tentative plan criteria. Conclusion: This will be reviewed during the site plan application process and building permit review process. _~. 7 Page 1 of 4 CPMC 17.24.050 -Area, Width and Yard Requirements- Tire following Iat regrrirerrrerzts shall e observed in the R-2 district: {A) -Lot area. The lot area s1za11 be a rrrizzirzzz.rnr of six tlznusand square. feet with corner lots being a minimum of seven tlzausarzd square feet. (B) - Lot zvidtlz -. The nrinimurrz zvidtlr of a lot shall be sixtt/ feet, with corner lots heizzg a nzinimunz of seventy feet in uridtJz. {C) -Lot depth - no requirements. {D) -Front yard -The front yard shall Ire a rnirzirnrrrzz of tzz1entz~ feet. {E) -Side yard. Side yard sluzll be a rzrinirzrurrz of five feet per story. Side yards abutting a street sJza12 be a minimum of ten feet; provided that, side z/ards abutting streets sJurll conrply zvitlz the following: (1) Sight distance and clear vision area requirerrzents set forth in the Public Works Standards. {2) Special setback rules set forth in Section 17.60.090; arzd {3) For structures or a part of any structure seared by a driveway located an the side yard, the minimum side yard setback, for that part of the structure serving the driveway, sucTz as a garage or carport shall be trvenh~ feet. {F) -- Rear Yard. Tire rear yard shall be a mininrurrr of ten feet. {G) -- Not withstanding tJze yard requirements above and depending on the Location of the lot, special setback requirements mayapply as specified in Section 17.60.090. Findings: As specifically outlined in findings as set forth in CPMC 17.(0.210 (Padiots), the parent parcel meets the requirements for items (A) - (B}. Item (C} does not have a Iat depth requirement. Items (~} - (G) shall be znet during the Site Plan review and building perzxu.t review process. Conclusion: The applicant has met the criteria applicable to the Tentative Plan application. CPMC 17.24.060 -Lot Coverage- The maximum permitted aggregate building coverage in an R-2 district shall be frfty percent of the lot area. Findings: The applicant shall meet the criteria during the Site Plan and building permit review process. Conclusion: Nat applicable to the Tentative PIaz~ application review process. CPMC 17 60.210 - Padlot developments - Padlot developments shall be a permitted use in all zoning districts in the city, except R-1 districts, subject to the fallowing: {A) - Padlot development applications shall be presented to the cite, and processed by the cit7~, in the same manner as a partition ar subdivision application: first, in the form of a tentative plan, then in the form of a fznal plat. All provision of Title 16 of this code that apply to subdivisions and partitions shall also apply to padlot developments; provided, tJzat the lot size provisions of this Code shall apply only to the parent lot and not to the padlat. Findings: The application being submitted as a tentative subdivision plat in accordance with Section 16. ..~. ~. Page 2 of 4 Conclusion: The parent parcel complies with the minimum lot standards far the R-2 zoning district. CPMC 17.60.210 {B) -The parent parcel, frorrr ztThiclr the pndlots rend corrrrrron area, if an y, are created, shall conform to the standard requirements for lots in the particular zone in znhiclr the parent parcel is located, including, but not limited to, requirements pertaining to lot area, lot zvidtla, lot depth, lot coverage, yard and setback requirements, number and height of brildings, densih~ restrictions, parking requirements, and distances betzr~een buildings. Finding: The parent parcel exceeds the minimum requirements for lot oxen, width, and depth as required in the R-2 district. Lots 1 -9 meet or exceed the minimum lot width requirements, lot area requirements and allowed densities for a padlot deveIoprnent. Conclusion: The applicant has xnet the applicable criteria for Tentative Plan approval. Lot covexage, setback requirements will be verified far compliance during the Site Plan review and building permit process. CPMC 17.60.210 (C) - Try pndlots zoithin fhe parent parcel are exempt from the lot area, zvidtlz and depth, yard and setback, and lot coverage requirements to zr~lrich the parent lot is subject. Findings: Zt is pxoposed that the project will be developed as nine (9) single family attached units. As illustrated on the Tentative Plan each unit will comply with the m;n;mum front, side and rear yard set backs for the R-2 district. As pxoposed each unit shall comply with the underlying zoning district set backs. Conclusion: This will be verified for compliance through the Site Plan review and building permit xeview pxocess. CPMC 1~ 60.210 (D) -Structures on pndlots must meet all applicable state of Oregon building code requirements, ns zc~ell as nll other applicable citlj, state, and federal regulations. Findings: Applicant shall include party wall and maintenance easements ox- the final plat submitted for approval. Specificity far the allowed uses of the party wall and maintenance easements shall e clearly stated under "Declaxations" of the signature page for final plat. Conclusion: This will be reviewed during the final plat application review to ensure that this language is included on the declarations page, as well their locations identified on the final plat ,prior to signing final plat. Refer to "Conditions of Approval" -- Condition numbers 4 -5. .n r-~ ^_~ p ~... Page 3 of 4 CPMC 17.60.210 (E) -Structures on padlnts must Ise rrrulti-dzc~eliing z.snit attached buildings. No detached, single-dwelling unit buildings shall be constructed orr a padlot. Findings: All Iots proposed are to be attached dwelling units. Conclusion: The applicant has met the criteria. CPMC 17.b0.210 {F} - No~Znal plat for the creation of a padlot develaprnerzt slialI be approved unless and until the developer ]ras also prez7fausl~ submitted and received cifr/ appr'oz~al for the covenants, conditions and restrictions applicable to the corrrrrzan area, if an, providing the continual managerrrerzt and mainterrance of the carrrrrron area and and irrrprovernents thereon. Findings: The project does not include any common area. Conclusion: Not applicable. CPMC 17.64.040 (A) (~) -Off-Street Parking and Loading - A prizrate garage ar carport accommodating not less fharz fzuo parking spaces for each dzi~elling unit. Findings: Compliance with this requirement will be met during the Site flan review and building permit review process. Conclusion: Though the City will ensure the off- street parking requirements shall be met as outlined above, the applicant is encouraged at the time of Site Plan Review to address where guests will be able to park. With the narrow lots and driveway aprons, on-street parking will be adversely impacted. However, the City does not have a minimum standard for the number of on-street/ guest parking required per dwelling unit. Page 4 of 4 ;) Public Work. De~-~~nt CENTRAL. POI f~IT t~ob I'ier~c~~, ~~i~~~~~c1~c~~ <a~t ><~ir»t~rc~, L~c~v.~c~rvrc ~ :; c.;~~>vrr~. P UB~,IC WC7K~S' X5'7 :9 FF REPfJTt 7' UCtober I<'~g Z~d6 AGENDA ITEM Nine I,at Subdivision far 3'7-2W-fJ1CB, Tax I_,c~ts 9U4J Applicant: Robert Wisnavsky, Winovsky llornc~, LLC, ""~ ~~'ells Far~,o Drive, lacksanvillc, C~1~ ~>" ,ate Zoning: R-2, Residential Twa Family Zoning '~'rai'~et Sascd on the Institute of Transportation };n~ineers (l l'l~,j 'T'rip Generation iVlanual, a nine lot ubditision will generate approximately 9.09 peak hear trills (1'l IT). Tlxe. City of Central Paint typically requires tr~t11 is studies far any development that generates more than 2S PHT. Flo traffic study is warranted. for this developrrrcnt. F:xistir~~; T~~frastructure: ~'~ ztsr: 'I'lxer~ is an existing 16-inch ductile iron waterline in llamrick Raad. Sto~~m brain: There is an existing l5" lII7PE storm drain luxe in I-I rick Raad. Street Section: Hamrick Road is an improved County Road that has been. improved to County Arterial Status. No sidewalks exist in (rant of the proposed parcel. Engineering and De~~elolxrrxent Plans and Permits: The Central Paint Public Works Dep~rtrnent is charged with management of the City's infrastn~cture, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. In general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and. Uniform Standard Details for Public Works Construction°' shall govern. haw public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifications from the Public Works Department. In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and profile far streets, water, storm drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm drainage basin map, erosion central plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The plan. may also include applicable traffic studies. legal descriptions and a tral"fie control plan. 940 South Third Street Centro! Paint, C?R 9?502 ~ 541.664.,332 k~ Fax 541.664.6384 System Development Charge Credit: S stem Develo ment Char es Credit SDC : The developer is eligible for SDC credit for the portion of the street dedicated for right-of way. The City shall pay thirteen dollars a square foot For the area dedicated. Conditions of Approval; Hamrick Road Frontage Improvements: Hamrick Road is classified as a Minor Arterial Street. Developer will be responsible for constructing sidewalk and landscape row, with street trees, for the Hamrick Road frontage. 2. Restricted Movement onto Hamrick Road: The City concurs with Jackson County Roads that a restricted movement of right in and out ingress and egress onto Hamrick Road. Applicant shall construct a concrete delineator or `park chap' at the intersection of the proposed street and Hamrick Road. 3. Right-of--Way Dedication: Applicant shall dedicate ten feet of right-of--way along the frontage of Hamrick Road for future widening to a minor arterial street. 4. Temporary Turn Around: Once the proposed street connects with the local neighborhood street plan to the west the temporary turn around shall be eliminated. Once removed applicant shall put in curb, gutter and sidewalk and landscape row. 5. Street Tree Plan: Tree plantings shall have at least a 1 '/z" trunk diameter at the time of installation. All street trees shall be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. Maintenance of the landscape row will be of the property owners who own the property directly adjacent to the landscape row. x ~ ~~ 940 South Third Streef ~~- Cenfral Poinf, OR 97502 ~ 541.664.3321 ~ Fax 549.664.6384 ~~ E B"1~ ~ I 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 `g ... ~ 99 City of Central Point, C~regan 140 Sa.~hird 5t., Central Point,t3r 97502 541.664.3327 Fax 541.b64.6384 www.ci-central-point.or us building ®epartment 1_ois [ae~ienedetti, i3uilding Official BUILDING I]EPARTMENT STAFF REPC)IZT DATE: IO/2310b T4: Planning Department Planning file: 0701.4 FRUM: Building Department SUBJECT: Hamrick Glenn Tentative Plan Name: Robert Wisnovsky Address: 270 Wells Fargo R-d. City: Jacksonville State: Qr. Property Description: 375W2W--OlCB-900 P~7RP®S~ Zip Code: 9'7530 The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is a~ot a plan review. This report is preliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. I 3pn .~.~ ~- Ci1ry of Ce 7405o.T#iird 5t.,C~ 541.664.3321 Fax www.ci.centrai-A~ h'oint, Oregon raf Poir3{, Or 97502 l .b64.5384 t.ar.us Building department !_ois #~eBenedetti, Bt~iiciiaig {official ~2RJA~i9~~~F AAAi~~~~~3YlE1~QT 0..~iVAI~'1EEN Y S: 1. Appli adopted cod 2. If a pz by the Centz 3. Any I Electrical Da ant, agent and contractors must comply with ali current State of Oregon ~, anal apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Depariznent. gate storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued Point Plumbing Department. vate street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point 4. Provid the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by OSSC Appendix 3 d chapter 1~ of the OSSC. A written report of the investigation shall include, but need not be limited to, the following information: a. .~4 plot plan showing the location of all test borings and/or excavations. b. descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. Elevations of the water table, if encountered. d_ Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and sail. strength, and the effects of adjacent loads. e_ When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided irz the foundation d~sign and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansiveness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical recommendations. S. Gradi~g/excavation permits are required in accordance with OSSC A.ppendi~ 3 and chapter 18 ar~d regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted F engineering ~ractices. A soil investigation report, and a report of satisfactory placement of fill (including special inspections of placement of dill and compactions acceptable to the Building Official, shal be submitted prior to final of the grading/excavation permit. Building permits will of be issued until gradingfexcavation permit is finalled. Exception: j 1. Th~ upper 1.5 foot of fill placed outside of public rights-of way. 2. Thy upper l .~ foot of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, ar vehicular access ways or parking areas. 2 ~n ~~ City of Centai Point, Oregon 1465o.T13ird5t.,Ce traiPoint,Or9750?. 541.664.3321 Fax 5 i.b64.6384 www.ci.central-poi t.pr.us 6. To Building 1/ 7. Noti located on 8. Any located wig 9. Dust 10. Appl indicating 1 T . Fire The Intern: implement Any changes contractor to This staff Building Department Lois f~el3e~edeui, 6ui(dir~g Official ve or demolish any existing strcictures Iacated on the property call the ~artment for permit requirements. the City Building Department of any existing wells, or septic systems property. ;velopment (any man-made change) to improved or unimproved real estate a the flood hazard area of the City of Central Point shall require a Permit as set forth in the Central Point Municipal Code 8.24.120. ~ntrol, and track out eliminations procedures must be implemented. ation fox building permits will require three sets of complete plans npliance with Oregon Residential Specialty Code (2005}. Note for zero Iot line construction in appendix O. .strict ~ will determine fire hydrant location, as well as access to buildings. anal Fire Code (2003) with Oregon Amendments (2004) will be as part of the plan check code requirement for these proposed buildings. proposed shall be submitted in writing by the Applicant, or Applicant's the Building Department for approval prior to start of work. prepared by TM 3 t ~ ~ Po ~ ~,,~ ~ _~~ ~ ~~'~~ ~ ., ~ o '°'. t~ctaber 31, t~{~6 City of Central Paint Planning Dept. Project O7tJ14 Hamrick G1'en Plan (Wisnavsky} The proposed turn around will indeed work as submiffed. ~~ When speaking with. Matt an tact 30, 240 we discussed ether options which we thought would better serve the project long term. Providing a temporary fern around, an adjacent property until Amaury t.ane continues through to the south would present a better ~~r~atch desie~rt for lets and '. If either adjacent property owner would agree to allow the te~r~parary turn around along the west edge of Amaury or at fhe south end of Rmaury then when tl~e lane connects to the neighboring street we would not have fhe altered face on buildings 6 ~ 7. Mark Marais DFM ''°~~~I1~~~IT° `d ~~~ Punning Department Canditinns of Appravai Applicant: Wisnovsky Homes, LLC File No. 07014 Condition No. Descri Linn of Condition 1 Applicant shall meet the requirements of the Planning Department, Public Works Department, Building Department Jackson Coup Roads and Fire District 3 Iaxhibits B-G . 2 The applicant shall submit a Site Plan Review application, as well as the required submittals, and fees far approval prior to final plat approval. The Site Plan Review application shall be for alI nine 9 lots. 3 Specificity for the allowed uses of the party wall & maintenance easements shall be clearly stated under "Declarations" of the si afore a e for the final lat. ~ Party wall & maintenance easements shall be identified on the final Iat submitted fora roval. 5 Prior to final plat approval the applicant shall provide final written acceptance from Fire District 3 for the temporary turn around location. 6 The final plat application shall be submitted prior to expiration of the tentative plan approval. Approval for the Tentative Plan is valid fox a period of one year, which shall ex ixe on Wednesda ,November 7, 200'7. ~~ ~ ~. $'~1~~~~~~~~~ t6 ~ t 9~ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING TENTATIVE PLAN APPROVAL TO CREATE A NINE (9) LOT ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY (PADLOT) SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS HAMRICK GLEN SUBDIVISION (Applicant: Wisnovsky Hermes, LLC) (37 2W 01CB, Tax Lot 900, APN # 10195531) Recitals 1. Applicant has submitted application to create nine (9) single family attached lots on property identified by Jackson County as Account 10195531. in the City of Central Point, Oregon. 2. On, November 7, 2ao6, the Central Point Planning Commission conducted adult'-noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports and heard testimony and comments on the application. Now therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Criteria A~plicable,to-Decision. The following chapters of the Central Paint Municipal Code apply to this application: A. Chapter 17.24, R-2, Residential Two Family District B. Chapter 17.60.210, Padlot Developments G Chapter 17.64.040, Off-Street Parking Requirements Section 2, Findin sand Conclusions. The Planning Commission hereby adopts by reference all findings of fact set forth in City staff reports, and concludes that, except where addressed in the conditions of approval, the applications and proposal comply with the requirements of the following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code: A. Chapter 17.24, relating to uses, lot size, lat coverage, setback and building height. B. Chapter 17.60, relating to development requirements for padlots. C. Chapter 17.64, relating to off_street parking requirements. ~~ ~~; . Planning Commission Resolution No. (110706) Se_c_tion 3. Conditional Approval., The application for Tentative Plan is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibit "A", the Planning Department Staff Report dated November 7, 2006 which includes attachments, which is attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein, imposed under the authority of CPMC 1b.36. Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7~ day of November, 2006. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 7~ day of November, 200b. Planning Commission Chair ~l~' rw~: F~ Planning Commission Resolution No. (1 ~ 0706} T~~XT AM~1~iDM~KTS FOF~ ST~ALT~ AHT~I~II`IAS tA1.Cirl~' l~'~E1 ~~'~+ M~ File No. U7006 ~S ~i ~ w3 J ~ ~' 9' I~.i'a~~f».J R 1 1`~laVC'trtlaci' ~, ~~~ ~(ti11111114'~ i 't_'.~')~li'Y1~1C~1"~Y: P 1:5 J711 ~. II~'l\ 1,i ii`.i l~Ilr't Request far consideration and co ent regarding tc:~.t aruL~~dents to Titlc 17 oftl~e City afCentral Paint Municipal Cade to provide concealed buildin~~ ray>1'a-~d wall mounted art~cna~as as a permitted use i high density residential, commercial and. industrial districts. STAFF SfJURCE: Ca1~~~ie Clune, Community 1'1a3~~7cr BACKGR4~UlD. Verizon Wireless LLC submitted a text ael~dl~l~~ii application to Title 17 alla~~ i~~~ ht~ilding roafand wall..mounted antennas, The purpose afthcir r4t~~~est is to update antenna lo~;atic~n standards to support the growing need and. advancing technology in cellular telephone systems, With ilxe expanding usage of wireless technology the issue of coverage is an important customer consideratio~~. In an effort to address both the customer needs for better coverage and the general communities coirccrrjs re~arclixsg ti isual pollution, Verizan proposes the use of roof ~~nd wall-n~ounicd ~~ntennas that are ca~r~r~ttfla~~~ed or desi~r~~ed be concealed, and that the use of such aaztcr~i~as be allow~;~l as a permitted use in the Residential ~~lultiple Family (R-3}, commercial and industrial zones. Currently, antennas are allowed only in the C_q,, '1'at~rist and C3ffice-Professional District. As additional bacl;y,~round staffpreparcd information (Attachment "A') describing stealth, carnoufla~e, ar concealment of antennas. Staff is prchared to further discuss the proposed ajne~zd~ns;nt at tl~e ~ueeting, Additionally, a representative frcni~ Verizo will be present to answer any technical gca~:stic~ns the Planning Commission ma} lta~•e. In reviewing Verizonys proposal sial'1-has made numerous revisions; including the provision of a definitions section, inclusion of the High Mix ResidentiallCommercial, Employment Commercial,. Cxeneral Commercial and Civic zones within the TOD District and. Corridor (Attachment "B"}. FINDINGS: Findings for the proposed text amendment will be addressed in the Staff Kepc>rt prepared for cansideratian at the regularly scheduled Plarming Commission meeting on December 5, ZOOM. ~~ } Page 1 of Z ISSUES: The following issues have been identified for discussion by the Planni~~g Con~n~ission: l . Acknowledgement ofthe distinction between tower-mounted and roof, or wall mounted antennas; 2. Effectiveness of stealth, camouflage, or concealment standards; 3. Location and status of existing antennas and effect of any modification in current regulations; 4. Permitted vs. conditional use of antennas; and S. To proceed with the proposed amendment as a City initiated amendment. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -Supplemental information Attachment "B" -Proposed Text Amendments ACTION: Consideration to initiate, on behalf of the City, an amendment to the code text regarding the regulations of antennas. RECOMMENDATION: Direct Staff to proceed with a City initiated amendment as presented in this Staff Report, or as otherwise directed by the Commission for consideration at their December S, 2QQ6 meeting. 6 v ,' Page 2 of 2 11~1~'~"ACNMI~,I'~1'1' "A'> The proposed taxi amendment discusses two types of x~aour~tcd alita~~nas, c;ancealad buildin;- mountad and tower-mounted antennas. The 1'ollawi~~~; axa~~aplcs are intended tt~ liell7 illc~sirata the type of antenna mounts discussed. Ta accommodate the increased customer demand f'ar wireless services and to mae:t ac;sthatic concern expressed by communities, companies are dasit;nin~; cancaalad antenna systems Concealed Building-Rood Mount Antennas: ~;;, „ `', ;, ~ ~ The cupola is a Varizon ~ lllSta~latlan In hand, Oral;an, " , , new cc~ppl~ ,, ~ ,,;z , , ,,, ~ now cuprai+a ` rd ' ' w~ , ~ _. s ' `~f 3 k f ~ •'•! ~ a'aMr ~,i ` i 0 ~ 1 .. n ~.. gY +~ ~~n 1 'Q`, b ~ J ~ ' Jr rL ~ p~ W .. \ sn - Y „ Fyn; P ~ ~ a~kt,ta i~~, ~ 3~~ ~.~°y k ~~ ~~ '1~Y 'y' ~"'',~ ~~m 1 in addition to Verizon, other companies oficr building roof antenna cicsii;r7s systcxus, t~x~~lair~3 ~'.~ot~c~~.~ ~ a~x~~~xsl~aesxt Pr~a~~ea~t~ ~zn~awa~i a.ic azo-~ t",rawrsir:Es.~~:I.:'f as'arz.°+C',~.r4~'~'3'IY.s: :, .ri,i,rrr.x,xuacv i:~r•~ax; i.° t.~xw°rbw^t s~t~„'a,ra^;ak ,;,x,v#,zaa"«',r,. „11. x, i I'a:a~ i.rwadwxdx x wa is;~,e 3'.riix av''ixa;. y ,a~b'm. i~ar^w: k':w~~na, x~ u,i~w,u,,.a: xwa+° x^.rp~u„wa°r,>1 t.ax *"'3=a.l,tx-,9 d'wMteit,»wt:,,w». »aaadsa d.~em~a^zaM:i Concealed Building-Wall Mount Antennas: A building wall-mounted antenna is designed to blend or be an architectural feature of a building. „~ ~~ ~,, .,, ~~~ Ad ~L',4~. N',:': ^ta ~. ~^k4 8 ki~~l: }~ ~ ~V .,;, K ~ E ~~~ fit, i+L~ ~`?~ ~:i t LAn ~w.`.~~~. i ~ fit: ,t ~e~c y{ ~.~ ~. ~,.. f... w ,i, 5'i. .. A variety of architectural designs and struct~arcs caz~ l~ec~~ utilized, A Tower-Moanted Antenna; Tower-maunted antennas are cammanly a manapale design Mauntain View Plaza Chevran Lacatian ,q The enclased map identifies the appraximate Lacatian of the twa existing fewer-maunted antennas. The map aisa illustrates the commercial and industrial zone districts. 3 ~ ~ .I 6 ~.. ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~, BaxlMs T Fire Oepwrtment Ceti Taroerv P..~' ~,,~ Gty tia@+Pdxe -1--~- Rmxoad C~i ~ Tourist and dice ~ ~' M•i =Industrial ~' '`y; r~ v,,, C•5 +~ Thoroughfare Commerr3 M•2 = Industrial loner J taxld4s deP TawarS t a Currently in the CPMC antennas 60'or less in heil;ht are permitted iii the C-4. Concealed (stealth) building roof and wall-mounted antennas, antennas 60' ar less are proposed in the following zone districts: Currently Proposed Uses in the Zone Districts Permitted Zone District Current Permitted Current Height Standard Concealed Building Roof/Wall Mounted Antenna Antenna <60' Height Antenna 61-SO' Hei rht R-3 N 35' P N N Civic N P N N CN N 35' P N N C-2M N 35" P N N C-4 P 60' P P C C-S N 35' P P C M1 N 60' P ? C M2 N 60' P ? C TOD DISTRICT/CORRIDOR HRM N 60' P N N Civic N 45' P N N EC N 60' P N N GC N 60' P N N P~ Permitted in the zone C- Condztianal Use required N-Not permitted in the zone ~ e: S /`'~ i 1 I"~~TIIVIGIV~ r~~, ss Definitions Section 17.08.010 "Antenna" means a device, dish or array used to transmit or receive signals far telecommunication purposes. An antenna is typically r~~rounted on a supporting tower, pole,_mast or building, Buildin Rooif Mounted Antennas. An Wireless Communication Facilit WCF antennas for cellular Personal Telecommunications Services PCS and similar radio services installed an a Buildin rg oof [see Section 17.60.40). Building Wall-Mounted Antennas. Any Wireless Communication Facility (WCF} antennas for cellular Personal Telecommunications Services PCS and similar radio services mounted to the roof edge or sidewall elevation of a building ar structure (see Section 17.60.40). ,t~~~~~'~~'--:~f~urrtc.d i~.;7~~'I~~~Q.~. i~11.1 ~.tl).1C111).ii 112()l1I)~4i~ (?1) Il C:(?lill)7i11?1C:fl~SC)?) ~~iC3~l`t~' $C3~~'L;i. Colrnmunication Facility Tower (Wireless). A structure, tower, pale or mast solely dedicated to su ort one or more wireless communications antenna s stems. For the purpose of this section, ..such a support structure will be referred to generically as a "tower". Tower types include: 1. "Gu ed tower". A tower that is su orted b use of caBles u wires that are errrlanentl anchored to the round. 2. "Lattice tower". A tower characterized b.~pen framework of lateral cross-members that stabilize the structure. 3. "Mono ole". A sin le u ri ht ole en ineered to be self"su ortin and requiring no guy wires or lateral cross-members. Stealth or Concealed Design. _ The desi~n_ of wireless communications facilities in a m~ er that eamoufla~;es, ar conceals, or disguises the facilities as described below: 1. Camoufla e. The use of sha e color and texture to cause an ob'ect to a ear to become a art of somethin else usuall a structure such as a building,, wall or roof. "Camouflage" does not mean invisible, but rather appearn as part of or exactly like the structure used as a mount. 2. Concealment. Full hidden from view. For exam le a Wireless Cominunrcation Faclity_(WCF) is concealed when it is completely hidden or contained within a structure, and is compatible with or complements the architectural character of the building, wall, or roof. K T . ~" 3. Dis uised. A Wireless Communication Facilit WCF that has been than ed to a ear to be somethin ~ other than what it reall is. por exam le WC's are sometimes dis uised to a ear as trees ar fla r ales. Wireless Communication Facility. (WCF}. A nan-staffed facility far the transmission of radio freauencv (RFC signals, usually cansistin~ of an eauinnrMent shelter. cabinet or other enclosed structure housing electronic equipment; a support structure; and antenna svstems or other transmission and reception devices. This includes cellular antennas. satellite dishes, and microwave dishes. ~, ~:v . Chapter 17.b0 General Regulations Section 17.60.40 Antenna Standards. The ur ose of these re ulatians is to ensure that antennas are re Mated in a manner that z~niniznizes ~isuaI im acts. The standards re ulatin the Iacement of antennas within the Cit of Central Point axe as set forth in this section. Section 17.60.40.10 Tower-Mounted Antennas. Tower-Mounted standards shall coxn~ly with the fallowzng standards: A. Tower-mounted antennas sixt b0 feet or Iess in hei ht as measured from the round are ermitted in those zonin districts illustxated in Table 1. B. Tower-mounted antennas in excess of sixt -one 61 feet but Iess than ei ht SO feet as measured from the round are ermitted as a conditional use in those zonin districts illustrafed in Table 1. Table 1 Tower-Mounted Antenna Zone District Antenna 6p`or Less in Hei ht Antenna 61'-$0' Hei ht C-4 P C C-5 P C M-1 ? C M-2 ? C P= Pexxnitted in District C= Conditional Use required c«~va~~-~ n1 e~Z. ~.7 .~k -, ,~r_ L FI-,r. i..~TCLC7T`iZ"CI ** LZ~C 21f~ i~ 1(•~v~~ ~ i CL~Z'I `~ ""'Cf"7'i'7C1~C~ C. "[~owc~r-:~~~c.~unteci ante~~nas are sub'ect to the following ~Teneral rec~zairem~nts: a. 4~hen ad'acezzt to residez-ztiall -zoned ro ernes additional tc~~tiYer setback may be re ~ uiz-ed to rotect a~Yaiz.lst co1la se~ ~~, . >, b. Towers and tower-mounted antennas s11a11 be. painted azz unobtrusive color; c. Li htin on towers shall be rolubited unless rec Mired b the Federal Aviation Administration; and d. Conditional use perzrzit applications may have additional conditions im osed to zxziti ate the visual im acf of the Power and tower-mounted antennas on surz•oundin ro ernes. Section 17.60.~k0.20 Buildin Roof and Wall-Mounted Antennas. The ur ose of these re ulations is to ensure that Buildin and wall-mount antennas are regulated in a manner that minimizes visual impacts; promotes the intent of concealed camaufla e and dis uised as defined in Section 17.08.010• rotects neighborhood livability; promotes universal service to all customers and ensures all roviders are fain treated. Roof and wall-mounted antennas as defined in Section 17.08.10 are permitted in all commercial, industrial, Residential Multiple- Famil~and. Civic zone districts, High Mix Residential jCoznmercial, Employment Commercial General Commercial and Civic zones within the TOD District and Coxridor within the City and UGS, subJect to the follawing_: A. Building Roof and Wall-Mounted Antennas 1. Building Roof-Mounted Antennas. Antennas installed on a building roof shall be incorporated within or concealed behind existing or new architectural features compatible with or that complement the architectural character so to be screened from view of the round level of abutting public streets and adjacent properties. Acceptable types of screening are placement behind the roof parapet, placement behind a screen desi ned to blend with the existin Buildin lacement within or on the mechanical penthouse or on aroof-mounted building element such as a chimney~ exhaust pipe, cupola, bell tower or flagpole. All roof-mount antennas shall comply with the Historic Preservation Overlay Zone, Section 17.70 of this ordinance. 2. Buildin Wall-Mounted Antennas. An Wireless Communication Facilit~(WCF) antennas mounted to the roof edge or sidewall elevation of a building shall be completely covered with the same exterior finish, or aimed the same color as the exterior of the Buildin or structure. All wall-mount antennas shall com 1 with Pro'ections form Buildin s Section 17.00.100 of this Chapter. 3. Allowable Height for Antennas Mounted on Building Roofs and Walls. Antennas mounted on building roofs and walls shall not extend more ~, ~~ f ~;5 ~ than ten (10) feet above the hi~~hest existzn~ az-chitectural feature oz~ the building. ~~ ~ ' _ Chapter 17.44 C-4, TOURIST AND OFFICE-PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT Sections: 17.44.010 Purpose. 17.44.020 Permitted uses. 17.44.03 0 Conditional uses. 17.44.040 Height regulations. 17.44.050 Area, width and yard requirements. 17.44.060 General requirements. 17.44.070 Signs and lighting of premises. 17.44.080 Ofl=street parking. 17.44.090 Antenna standards. 17.44.010 Purpose. The C-4 district is intended to provide for the development of concentrated tourist commercial and entertainment facilities to serve both local residents and the traveling public, and also for the development of compatible major professional office facilities. C-4 development should occur at locations that will maximize ease of access and visibility from the Interstate 5 freeway and major arterial streets and to be convenient to the users of Expa Park, the airport, and downtown. (Ord. 1436 ~2(part}, 19$1). 17.44.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the C-4 district: A. Professional and financial, including: 1. Banks and similar financial institutions, 2. Accounting and bookkeeping offices, 3. Real estate offices, 4. lnsurance company offices, 5. Legal services, 6. Architecture and engineering offices, 7. Professional photo or art studios, $. Counseling services, 9. Corporate or governmental offices; B. Tourist and entertainment-related facilities, including: 1. Convenience market; meat, poultry, fish and seafood sales; fruit and beverage stands, 2. Drugstore, 3. Automobile sezvice station; automobile and recreational vehicle parts sales and repairs; and truck rentals, 4. Motel and hotel, 5. Walk-in movie theater, 6. Bowling alley, 7. Photo and art galleries, $. Photo processing pickup station, -y ~: ~ h Proposed Amendments: C-4 9. Travel agency, 10. Barber and beauty shops, 11. Sit-down restaurant or dinner house {izicluding alcohol}, 12. Cocktail lounges and clubs serving alcoholic beverages, 13. Tavern with beer only, 14. Commercial parking lot, 15. Community shopping centers, defined as a group of commercial establishments planned, developed, owned or managed as a unit which may include any of the pei-~~~itted uses in this section and may also include the following uses: a. Superzriarket, b. Department store, c. Sporting goods, d. Books and stationery, e. Gifts, notions and variety, f. h'loz-ist, g. Leather goods and luggage, h. Pet sales and related supplies, i. Photographic supplies, j. Health food, k. Self-service laundry, I. Antique shop, m. Delicatessen, n. Pastry and confectionery, o. General apparel, p. Shoes and boots, q. Specialty apparel, r. Jewelry, s. Clocks and watches, sales and service, t. Bakery, retail only, u. Bicycle shop, v. Audio, video, electronics sales and service, w. Printing, lithography and publishing, 16. Mobile food vendors, 17. State-regulated package liquor stores, 18. Other uses not specified in this or any other district, if the planning commission finds them to be similar to the uses listed above and compatible with other permitted uses and with the intent of the C-4 district as provided in Section 17.60.140. 19. Large Retail Establishment 80,000 sq. ft. or less as defined in Section 17.08.010, Retail Establishments, Large. th~m~ n,_ ho< kf ro ,~ ~+• a •~.oa • ryt, n~fa_ ~ ~ n n nn n. (Ord. 183 5 § 1, 2003; Ord. 1823 ut~1a11 Nlll V; ~LA4 AVt', HAULlV11J UV~]V11V VLL II I-~ ~4(part), 2001; Ord. 1736 §2, 1996; Ord. 1727 §2, 1995; Ord. 1720 ~I, 1995; Ord. 1684 §44, 1993; Ord. 1615 §37, 1989; Ord. 1511 §6, 1984; Ord. 1436 §2(part}, 19$1). ~~ Proposed Amendments: C-4 2 1.7.44.030 Conditional uses. A. The following uses are pern~zitted in the C-4 district when authorized i~~ accoz•da~zce with Chapter 17.76: 1. Campgrounds and recreational vehicle aver~zight facilities; 2. Drive-in movie theater; 3. Golf course/driving range; 4. lee and roller skating rinks; 5. Dance halls; 6. Billiard/pool halls; 7. Miniature golf courses; 8. Amusezxzent center (pinball, gaz~~es, etc.}; 9. Nonindustrial business/vocational schools; 10. Physical fitness/conditioning center; maztial arts schools; 11. Carwash; 12. Taxicab dispatch office; I3. Ambulance/emergency services; 14. Day care center; 15. Drive-in fast food outlets; 16. Other specialty food outlets, mobile food vendors; l7. Television and radio broadcasting studio; 18. Retail auto parts sales; 19. Accessory buildings and uses customarily appurtenant to a permitted use, such as incidental storage facilities, may be permitted as conditional uses when not included within the primary building or structure; 20. Permitted uses that are referred to the planning comzxzission by city staff because they were found to exhibit potentially adverse or hazardous characteristics not normally found in uses of a similar type and size. B. Uses other than those listed above may be permitted in a C-4 district when included as a component of a commercial, tourist, ar office-professional planned unit development that consists predominant ly of uses permitted in the zone and is planned and developed in accordance with Chapter 17.68. These uses shall include the following: 1. Department store; 2. Sporting goods; 3. Books and stationery; 4. Gifts, notions and variety; 5. p'lorist; 6. Leather goods and luggage; 7. Pet sales and related supplies; 8. Photographic supplies; 9. Health food; 10. Self-service Iaundry; 11. Antique snap; 12. Delicatessen; 13. Pastry and confectionery; w, , Proposed Amendments: C-4 3 14. General apparel; 15. Shoes and boots; 16. Specialty apparel; 17. Jewelry; 18. Clocks and watches, sales and services; 19. Bakery, retail only; 20. Bicycle shop; 21. Audio, video, electronics sales and service; 22. Printing, lithography and publishing. . {Ord. 1835 §2, 2003; Ord. 1823 ~4{part}, 2001; Ord. 1511 ~7, 1984; Ord. 1436 §2{part}, 1981). 17.44.040 Height regulati©ns. No building or structure shall exceed sixty feet in height in the C-4 district except when authorized for telecommunication antenna support structures, other antenna structures or signs defined by this chapter. (Ord. 1823 §4{part}, 2001; Ord. 1436 ~2(part}, 1981). 17.44.050 Area, width and yard requirements. A. Lot Area. Lot area shall be a minimum of five thousand square feet. B. Lot Width. Lot width shall be a minimum of fifty feet. C. Lot Depth. Lot depth shall be a minimum of one hundred feet. D. Front Yard. The front yard shall be a minimum often feet. E. Side Yard. The side yards shall be a minimum of fve feet plus one-half foot for each foot by which the building height exceeds twenty feet. F. Rear Yard. The rear yard shall be a minimum of ten feet. 1n cases where the rear property line abuts any residential (R) district or any unincorporated lands, the rear yard shall be increased by one-half foot for each foot by which the structure ar building height exceeds twenty feet. G. Lot Coverage. No lot coverage requirements, provided the setback and parking and loading requirements are met. (Ord. 1823 ~4(part}, 2001; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). 1.7.44.0&0 General requirements. A. Uses that are normally permitted in the C-4 district but that are referred to the planning commission for further review, per Section 17.44.030(A}(19}, will be processed according to application procedures for conditional use permits. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment ar materials shall be used which are found by the planning commission to be harmful to persons living or working in the vicinity by reason of odor, fumes, dust, smoke, cinders, dirt, refuse, water-carried waste, noise, vibration, illumination or glare, or are found to involve any hazard of ire or explosion. f; ~c Proposed Amendments: C-4 4 B. Alt businesses, sezvices and processes shall be conducted entirety within a completely enclosed structure, with the exception of aff street parking and loading areas, outdoor eating areas, service stations, outdoor recreational facilities, recreational vehicle overnigl~t facilities, and other compatible activities, as approved by the planning cornznissior~. C. Open storage of materials related to a pet~nitted use shall be conditionally permitted only within an area surrounded ar screened by a solid wall or fence having a height of six feet; provided, that no materials or equipment shall be stored to a height greater than that of the wall. D. Front yard areas shall be planted with lawn, trees, shrubs, flowers or other suitable landscaping materials and shall be continuously maintained in good condition and in an attractive manner. In cases where the buildings are set back to provide for off-street parking in the front yard area, a landscaped strip having a minimum width of ten feet shall be established and maintained along the front lot line. (Ord. 1436 §2(part}, 1981 }. 17.44.070 Signs and lighting of premises. A. No illuminated sign or lighting standards used far the illumizaation of premises shall be so designed and installed that their direct rays are toward or parallel to a public street or highway or directed toward any property that lies within a residential (R) district. B. No red, green or amber lights ar illuminated signs may be placed in such a location ar position that they could be confused with, or may interfere with, any official traffic-control device, traffic signal or directional guide signs. C. Signs in the C-4 district shall be permitted and designed according to provisions of Chapter 15.24 and with Section 17.60.110. {Ord. 1615 §16, 19$9; Ord. 1436 §2(part), 1981). 17.44.080 Off-street parking. Off-street parking and loading spaces shall be provided as required in Chapter 17.64. (Ord. 1436 ~2(part}, 1981}. L~ •,. , ~N~~ Proposed Amendments: C-4 ~~`~ `~ v 1 i,' pr~,posed P~men~me~~s' ~W4