HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - November 5, 2002CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
November 5, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.
~ ~~ ~
Next Planning Commission
Resolution No. 557
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
II. ROLL CALL
Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Don Foster, John LeGros, Paul Lunte, Rick Perry and Wayne
Riggs
III. CORRESPONDENCE
IV. MINUTES
A. Review and approval of October 1, 2002, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
A. Public hearing to review an application for twelve residential homes to be
included as an additional phase of the Cedar Shadows Planned Unit
Development. The subject property is located near the intersection of Freeman
Road and Shadow Way in the R-3, Residential Multiple Family zoning district
on Map 37 2W I I BA, Tax Lots 8600, 8800 and 8900.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
Planning Commission
October 1, 2002
I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M.
II. ROLL CALL:
Chairman Chuck Piland, Rick Peny, Candy Fish, Paul Lunte, Wayne Riggs and Don Foster
were present. John LeGros was absent.
Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken Gerschler, Community
Planner; Matt Samitore, Community Planner and Chris Clayton, Senior Public Works
Technician.
III. CORRESPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
IV. MINUTES
Commissioner Fish made a motion to approve the minutes from the September 3, 2002
meeting as presented. Commissioner Perry seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Perry; yes,
Fish, yes; Lunte, yes. Commissioners Foster and Riggs abstained. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Public hearing to review an application for a Planned Unit Development at 431
North Second Street. The subject property is located in the TOD-MMR,
Medium Mix residential zoning district on Map 37 2W 03DB, Tax Lot 800.
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department staff report. The
applications submitted by Habitat for Humanity consist of two phase PUD with the first phase
creating six single family lots. Each lot will have one single family one, with an attached 0' lot line
design. Each of the homes will be 2 story and vary in size from 1,100 to 2,912 square feet The
development meets the minimum density requirements for the TOD-MMR zoning district. A shared
common drive is proposed with Tom Malot Construction. The driveway will allow for 5 units to
accessed from the subject property as well as further development of the Malot Construction parcel.
The minimum PUD size is 1 acre, but the applicants have been granted an administrative variance
in order to proceed with the PUD application. Units 5 and 6 need some design modifications in order
to meet the minimum standards for garages. These changes must be shown prior to Final PUD
approval. Several large trees are to be preserved as part of the plan.
Nick Hale, a volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, spoke about the project and explained how Habitat
would modify their design for Unit 5 and 6.
Chris Clayton, Department of Public Works, stated that a 20' Storm Drain easement on this property
could be vacated to allow the design modifications.
Chairman Piland and Commissioner Lunte questioned the driveway size. The applicants agreed to
reduce the size of the individual paved driveways in order to add more landscaping to the lots.
Alvaro Plei of 668 Cedar Street, Central Point, OR, stated he was excited to start the project.
Anna D'Amato, of Habitat for Humanity, spoke about the history and benefits of Habitat for
Humanity.
Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adopt Resolution 554 approving the PUD Development
Plan of 372W03DB, Tax Lot 800 subject to the recommended conditions of approval and
modifying the paved driveway widths and making design changes to homes fronting Second
Street. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously.
B. Public hearing to review an application for a tentative lot partition and a site
plan that would allow adrive-through restaurant to be constructed at the end
of South Peninger Road in the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional District on
Map 37 2W 02D, Tax Lot 2904.
Matt Samitore, Community Planner presented the Planning Department StaffReports. The first item
was a partition of the previously approved LaRue Partition. The partition would create two tax lots.
Parcel 1 would be 36,883 square feet and Parcel 2 would be 35,347 square feet. Parcel two also has
a lot line adjustment to adjust the tax lot around a previously constructed cul-de-sac. Each lot meets
the minimum lot dimensions for the C-4, Tourist and Office Professional zoning district. An
ingress/egress easement is shown on the parcels for cross-lot vehicular movement.
The original notice for the meeting did not include the partition. Therefore, only conditional
approval maybe granted for the partition. In order to give the proper comment period the Planning
Department will continue to accept comments unit October 11, 2002. An additional meeting may
beheld on October 14, 2002 if comments warrant the need to do so.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution 555 approving the Tentative Minor
Land Partition of372W02D, Tax Lot2904 subject to the recommended conditions of approval.
Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously.
On the previously approved Parcel 1 of the South LaRue Partition the applicants are proposing the
construction of a joint A&W and Kentucky Fried Chicken Restaurant. The restaurant will be an
approximately 3,152 square feet single story building. At this time the applicant is unsure if they
will occupy the A&W portion ofthe building. The applicants have proposed 41 parking spaces, two
of which are ADA accessible. Only 35 spaces are required. Access to the restaurant would be taken
from two driveways on Peninger Road. The main driveway will share access with Parcel 2.
The Public Works Parks and Recreation Department has submitted a list of landscaping changes to
the landscape plan that are part of the conditions of approval.
A Transportation Master Plan is currently being conducted by the City of Central Point and the
Oregon Department of Transportation. If the study suggests modifications to the intersection of
Peninger and E. Pine Street the land owner will have to participate in a Local Improvement District
to finance their modifications. The agent for the applicant has been part of the community meetings
regarding the plan.
The agent for the applicant, Dennis Hoffbuhr 3155 Alameda Street, Medford, OR 97501, stated that
the joint driveway will be partially paved to allow for vehicular movement. He had no objection to
the recommended conditions of approval.
Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adopt Resolution 556 approving the Site Plan for
372W02D, Tax Lot 2904 subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner
Fish seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanimously.
C. Public meeting to review and provide a recommendation to the City Council
regarding a street name change within the Cedar Shadows Planned Unit
Development. The homeowners association for the development have voted a
resohition in favor of changing the street from Cedar Shadows Way to Shadow
Way.
Ken Gerschler presented the staff report. The homeowners association for Cedar Shadows have
submitted a petition to change the street named Cedar Shadows Way to Shadow Way. Since the
street is located entirely upon private property, a copy of the petition was forwarded to all of the
applicable agencies including emergency services. The Jackson County Surveyor located a
requirement in State Law that specifies astreet re-naming procedure regardless of street ownership.
The Planning Department requests that the Planning Commission recommend the street name change
to the City Council.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to recommend the name change the City Council.
Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: The recommendation passed
unanimously.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
There was no miscellaneous items.
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded
the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting was adjourned at 8:50
P.M.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE November 5, 2002
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Matt Samitore, Community Planner
SUBJECT: Conditional Use, Tentative Plan, and Planned Unit Development
Expansion for Mingus Creek Estates.
Applicant/
Owner: Darren Lecomte& Phyllis Wolfard
1110 Gatepark Drive
Central Point, OR 97502
Chris Adderson
1361 Brook Court
Medford, OR 97504
Agent: Same as above
Pro er
Description/ 37 2W1 IBA Tax Lots 8600, 8800, & 8900 - 0.90 Acres
Zoning: R-3, Residential Multiple Family
Summary:
The applicant has submitted a preliminary development plan for a residential subdivision
consisting of 12 lots (Exhibit A). The applicant is also requesting a Conditional Use Permit to
modify to the Cedar Shadows Planned Unit Development (PUD) boundaries to include the
subject properties. Expanding the PUD boundary wil allow the applicant to create a housing
development that is similar to the Cedar Shadows I and to work around the topographic
limitations on site.
Authority
CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and
render a decision on any application for a preliminary development plan for PUD's. Notice of
the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. (Exhibit B).
Applicable Law•
City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, Housing Element
CPMC 16.10.010 et seq: Tentative Plans
CPMC 17.28.010 et seq.- R-3, Multiple Family District
CPMC 17.60.130 et seq.- General Provisions, Access
CPMC 17.68.010 et seq.- Plamred Unit Development
CPMC 17.76.010 etseq.- Conditional Use Permit
Discussion•
Darren Lecomte and Chris Adderson originally submitted two separate applications for this
development. Mr. Adderson originally planned on putting asix-plex on Lot 8600, but was
unable to do so because of setback requirements. After discussing development options with City
Staff and Mr. Lecomte, the applicants decided to proceed with a joint application. The parcels in
which the subdivision are proposed were originally divided as part of the Mock Partition in 1998.
The Mock Partition and Cedar Shadows Planned Unit Development (PUD) were joint
applications to develop this area with a private street. Part of the private street, Shadow Way, is
currently owned by the applicants, and they are entitled to access onto the street as part of the
original Mock Partition Conditions of Approval.
This project is being processed as a PUD expansion since there are some unique issues
concerning the redevelopment of the neighborhood, creek setbacks, and access onto a private
street. In granting the PUD boundary expansion, the applicants hope to have a development that
is similar to Cedar Shadows in design and to gain the development flexibility associated with the
PUD.
The applicants are requesting the same setbacks that were granted for Cedar Shadows PUD.
Thirteen foot front yard for the house, 18' minimum for the garage. 3' minimum side yard
setbacks with a total of 6' between units, and 9' minimum for the rear yard. The housing style
will be a combination of housing types. Some will be similar in nature to the homes currently
being constructed in Cedar Shadows, and others will feature a craftsman style of construction.
All of the lots aze of the similar in size to the Cedaz Shadow PUD .
Access to nine of the twelve units will be from Shadow Way. The other three lots will access
from Freeman Road. A 12' Right-of--Way dedication is recommended by the Public Works
Department for future expansion of Freeman Road. Several small access drives are also
proposed as part of this development. Fire District No. 3 has reviewed the application and are in
support of the proposal. BCVSA has also reviewed the application. Sewer service is available for
the development, but some new sewer laterals will need to be constructed.
The development lies within the special setback requirement for streams. No structure can be
built within 25' of the top of the stream bank. All building footprints depicted in the preliminary
plan meet this requirement. A small access road will serve 3 homes that will face onto the
Mingus Creek. The road is allowed as part of the ordinance. The top of the bank will be
landscaped with tree's and shrubbery. A new flood study is currently being conducted by
Northwest Hydraulic Consultants as part of an overhaul of the current Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Maps for Central Point. If the study concludes this area to be
within the 100-year flood plain of Mingus Creek the developer shall build all homes to the City's
minimum elevation requirements.
Mingus Creek Estates will need to form a Home Owners Association independent of Cedar
Shadows. In this circumstance the developer plans on forming a separate association that
addresses parking, landscaping, and building architecture. The Association will need to work out
an agreement for their maintenance of Shadow Way with the Cedar Shadows Home Owners
+~
k~
Association. A copy of this agreement must be submitted to the City of Central Point prior to
Final Plat approval.
The Public Works Department has submitted a staff report with specific requirements concerning
the development (Attachment D). Jackson County Roads has also submitted comments and
recommendations for consideration by the Commission (Attachment C).The Planning
Department recommended conditions of approval aze enclosed at Attachment "E".
Conditional Use Permit
CPMC 17.28.0301ists Planned Unit Developments as a conditional use in the R-3, Residential
Multiple Family District. In this case the applicants are using the Conditional Use Permit to
request a modification to the boundaries of the Cedar Shadows I.
Required Findings for a Conditional Use Permit
Conditional uses require special consideration so that they may be properly located with respect
to ... the zoning title and their effect on surrounding properties. The Planning Commission in
granting a Conditional Use Permit must find as follows:
A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use
and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and
all other provisions of this code.
^ The parcel for this proposed development has an area of 0.90 acres. The total area
for the joint PUD boundaries is 3.10 Acres. The proposal is similar in nature to the
existing Cedar Shadows PUD and will have the same setbacks as Cedar Shadows.
^ The applicant is creating 12 tax lots. The residential density for the R-3 zoning
district is a maximum of 25 units an acre. In this case the applicants could build up
to 24 units, but have chosen to pursue an owner occupied market.
B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or
highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the traffic that is
expected to be generated by the proposed use.
^ Nine of the twelve lots will access Shadow Way, a private street which permits
access of up to 24 additional units. Shadow Way intersects onto Freeman Road,
which is a Minor Arterial. Freeman Road currently has a capacity of 10,000 vehicle
trips day and current traffic is 7,000 daily trips. Right of Way dedication for future
capacity improvements will be required.
C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the
permitted use thereof.
^ The proposed development if approved would provide a less or equally intense
development to adjoining properties than if the developer were to construct an
apartment complex.
cl
D. That the conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect
the public health, safety, and general welfare.
^ Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority confirms that sewer service can be provided
to the site.
Planned Unit Devel~ment
A planned unit development (PUD) may be permitted in an R-3 zoning district subject to the
approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a preliminary development Plan. If the preliminary
development plan is approved, an application for final development plan must be submitted
within six months of such approval.
CPMC 17.68.010 states that the purpose of planned unit development (PUD) is to gain more
effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the mixing of
building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation. This is
achieved by allowing a variety of building and structures, types of open space, variable building
heights and setbacks, and shazed services and facilities.
The proposed PUD is a single family residential development. It consists of twelve (12) lots
ranging in size from 2,660 to 4,392 square feet. Each lot will be constructed with a single family
detached residence. Access to nine of the twelve lots will be from Shadow Way and the other
three from Freeman Road. Each dwelling will have a two car garage. There will be no additional
on street pazking allowed for this development on Shadow Way or inside Cedar Shadows PUD.
There will be limited on-street parking on Freeman Road. Strict Convents, Codes, and
Restrictions (CC&R's) will be written and enforced for the Mingus Creek Estates Home Owner's
Association for off-street parking. Additional parking could be allowed within Cedar Shadows
PUD if there is an agreement with the Cedar Shadows Home Owners Association.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary development plan for compliance
with the City's water, sewer, storm drain and transportation standards. The Public Works staff
report is attached as Exhibit E.
Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law
Size ofPUD site
A PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres or lazger, except that a PUD maybe on a tract of land
more than one acre but less than five acres if the planning commission finds, upon a showing by
the applicant, that a PUD is in the public interest because one or more of the following conditions
exist:
A. An unusual physical feature of importance to the people of the area or the
community as a whole exists on the site, which can be conserved and still leave the
landowner equivalent use of the land by the use of a planned unit development;
^ The site of the expanded PUD is 0.90 acres, but is part of an overall PUD area of
3.40 acres.
B. The property or its neighborhood has historical character or distinctive
features that are important to the community and that could be protected or enhanced
through use of a PUD;
^ The applicants are constructing residential homes within an existing residential
neighborhood. The homes will be similar in design and architecture to the existing
homes. The PUD will allow for single family dwellings to be constructed that would
preserve the neighborhood character.
C. The property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned unit
development of similar design as that proposed and developments would complement
each other without significant adverse impact on surrounding areas;
^ The project is adjacent to the Cedar Shadows PUD and will have similar lot size,
house size, and architecture.
D. The property is of irregulaz shape, with limited access, or has unusual
dimensions or characteristics which would make conventional development unreasonably
difficult and expensive
^ The lots are part of an unusual configuration and an in-fill redevelopment area.
The lots are surrounded by a secondary arterial, a private road and a creek with
special setback requirements. Conventional development world make the majority
of these lots nnbuildable and contradictory to the ideas of the R-3, Residential
Multiple Family District.
Criteria to Grantor Deny a PUD
In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision
on the following standards from section 17.68.040:
A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to
the normal requirements of this title;
^ The applicant's preliminary development plan proposes 12 single family dwellings.
The housing types will be similar to the existing neighborhood and will have the
similar architecture and size.
B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the
zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the City;
^ This proposal is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals to fhe degree it
ensures adequate horsing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing
~e
offered and promotes higher density zoning. The project promotes alternative
housing designs that will potentially minimize the need to expand the urban growth
boundary by encouraging a higher density project near the downtown. Zoning code
objectives can be met if recommended planning arrd public works conditions are
satisfied. This type of development is only a tentative plan review in newer TOD
sections of the Central Point Municipal Code.
C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal
adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding
area;
^ The preliminary development plan is consistent with the zoning in the surrounding
area. Each of the lots is in the same price range as the adjacent subdivision and the
homes will be of similar size and design.
D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry
out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the
final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete
said construction with a reasonable time as determined by the Commission;
^ Both applicants have a successful history of building homes in the valley and both
intend to start construction as soon as possible.
E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be
obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal
traffic circulation and parking;
^ Nine of the Twelve units will access onto Shadow Way, which can serve an
additional 24 units. All of the units will eventually access onto )freeman Road, a
secondary arterial, which can handle 10,000 vehicle trips a day. The current
demand is 7,000 vehicle trips.
F. The commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide
adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed;
^ There is no commercial development proposed within this development.
G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate
provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage;
^ There is no industrial development proposed within this development.
H. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and
rough terrain, if these are present;
^ The preliminary development plan depicts shared driveways which allow for larger
green areas, street trees, and a rehabilitated Mingus Creek stream bank.
PRELIMINA RY PLAN 5
0
I ~
• N
~
j
1
Y
~Cm
C
HN
O
x3*
z
wor.
~ d
aRE SMaP G
~ o z
N ~ c
MINGUS CREEK ESTATES SUBDIVISION ~ ~x g ~ ~' ~
"' ~ ~
CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 .
!
y 1 ~_ NAP ! Z
~ i w 9 ~ Y
~~
~ ~ $ x .~
~+ew wmrv • ~
CEDAR SHADOWS WAY
- ~
~ LL ~
#~,.NR.~r.,x. ~
~
.ae rauRrxmnwmra~ +nc.n.c.,u iriY o.~ +
t~
~ ~
,q'wn ~ ~
'" ~
ce ~
~ ~<
T
1
ixeN.a. Ana
..¢.u
~
.:~ ~
9
~
~j
dd
w $
J
~ LOTR I _ ~ i
Q' ~ vuxe '.
\ t
f.
~ ~ ~
tt G^
~m
I I .xvi ]O.ri. Oik2
'
~ I ~ad'tt / 1 ~ cos, ~1 ~ "' .i 4 ,
I m.> .R.
ra ~ ~ ~ $ W
C
i
1
T 4
t
A
~ .
~
I
~
xamn
~
A
LOTtt3 o
RA
amsO ri.
I
Qi
J
~
: ,
~ Y
I~ ~~+~ ifW W rt i# c ~ ' F
~
' '
i a ~ ~ \
a
.~..
, vuoe .1
~ i
us
I LOTA6 F.
Z I e e
. m.w T*. ~$
¢
-
w ,
o /
-
s~ b
.
~
P
f ~ V
•
~. x, I
C~
~ ~~
mne v OTRIO
L LOTk9 LOTNB I
OTRl2 T#tl ~
.#IT .IT.
~
g Itp Sy R.
lOi#] S
E~Q`
L HN wr
i.v
d ]iAtQ.Ii.
.acin
{ V O"
~~
Lx4 \ /
~
.
I I lp n i J m~siwxxnru siTExAN
~ I
~ J _ 1 ~
ff'i
_ ~5 ~ G." ® ® ~'
_~ ® ~5 ® ® ® ® Qf ~i sCALE: 1'.30'
""'~ ~
~ REVISION#S
DATED 1D/v/03
PAGE l OF i
DRAWIN68Y:
DARKEN LECOMT£
~~'~imesrt ~.
C ~~ ~ y o ~ e'en trG ~~ Poln C
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Tom Humphrey, AICP
Planning llirector
Ken Cerschler
Community Planner
Matt Samitore
Community Flanner
Dave Arkens
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: October 15, 2002
Meeting Date: November 5, 2002
Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate}
Place: Central Point City Hall
I55 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
NATURE OF MEETING
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an
application for a Planned Unit Development on a parcel of property located near the intersection of
Shadow Way and Freeman Road. The subject parcel islocated in aR-3, Residential Multiple-Family
Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372WO11BA, Tax Lots 8600, 8800 and 8900.
The Central Point Planning Commission will initially review the tentative plan for the Planned Unit
Development to determine if the proposed subdivision meets the requirements of law. If approved,
the subdivision would create a residential development with 12 parcels.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements for Planned Unit Developments are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central
Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations and Construction Plans. The proposed plan
is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit
written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 5,
2002.
2. Written comments maybe sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155
South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shal(be raised prior to the
expiration ofthe comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about
the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated
clearly to the Planning Commission.
4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City
Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at
I S cents per page.
5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664-
3321 ext. 292.
SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE
At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, heaz
testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any
testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of
the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the tentative plan for the Planned Unit
Development. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all
Planning Commission decisions.
v
.~.
155 South Second Street • Central Point, OR 97502 ®(541) 664-3321 ®Fax: (541) 664-6384
10129(2002 11:01
15417746295 JACKSON COUNTY RPS PAGE 01
A>'~'
=.- - JAC I~5 aN COUNTY
.Raac~s
October 18, 2002
Attention: Tom Humphrey
City of Central Point Planning
115 South Second Street
Central Point, OR 97502
RE: PUD off Freeman Road - acounty-maintained road.
372W 116A lax Lots 8600, 8800 and 8900; 12-parcel PUD.
Dear Mr. Humphrey:
eo~as
Eric Niemeyer, PE
Trn/frr & De•-elnpmem Fnginrer
200 Antelope Road
White City OR 97503
PtNnc:54 5-7 748230
Fax 5<t-774.8295
nicmeyH ydjacksoncounry.org
vnwiiacksonco0nty.org
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this app{ication for the tentative plan
approval for the Planned Unit Development. The subdivision would create a residential
development with 12-parcels. Roads and Parks Services has the following comments:
The applicant shall submit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads and
Parks Services and obtain county permits if required.
2. We recommend shared access along Shadow Way with no direct parcel access to
Freeman Road.
If you have any questions or need further information feel free to call me at 774-6230.
Sincerely,
C.-~
Eric Niemeyer, PE
Traffic & Development Engineer
,._
~~
Mingus Creek Estates 1"1 ~~G~K~GIL~JL/!(, a~ /
10131 /2002
Page 1
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STAFF REPORT
EXHIBIT
n-<,: ^~F::. . d::-':it.a'. y-y ~.:a..-yys~~>.t. ~'ifl`: .::ti.>":_93:Y .;~ - ~a~t':a' ,re; ~z z:.
Date.. .:'!VC]VPtSinPY r1. -~Jr~r~'~ ,"*Ae : ,S, E~., ° rr, et.,rs ..t.:~°s'n::: ~ -
,C.. -
3
,~
-
~ '
~
K ~ O(i-3 f ~ `~5~.~~.. r n
S1gi,.~4.,.~~i+ar h'Z$R'SSQS
~%
~ Vi
-
i2
~v~'.`~~j~3` J^. .k:v/'.l/
i
a: I
F L
S~q}\T ~.
S
xtC
t~`+"}i
`~l ! eS ~~;i ~Y~.•• y.~~' 1 t~~
'~fY f^3;~? ~`ie4w'.C
~'~` f
M~~
; '
"V
~
•`
~
~
f~
~ ¢:, d N
.
,
-ax
s
; ry
r
p .
y
y.
.°
'
:
3
d
-rti
i~.., t a~,~s. - ~' •,+ .
~
l.,y~`.s
.
, a.,
i
,.
-
'T,icei~tt. .: ~~ . e .` L ~-~-' ,,.~,.:,
A
::
ply tC
ar``rt=:~~#?
t~ llis:}7Va faC~``~,
tl
I
Y ~ r r>~~ rs<i~~
o=;~< ,`,'"..>.:
Fir ~ ..~, ~~:
~ ~`:
~:
-~:
~
':
.
...
,..
.
.
.
~r:.t'
__
,
,
:-.~:^r",'.oc_n,
.
::
•-
~
"
- ..:
.._ «~,,.
.
..a., .
~w
. ,.
^.'::t`.`.:~..n'x;~'
,'e:
i~ti~
a3,
,
ti
t
.
_
,;,;
y
~
y.x;.~:
. _. .:~
c
.
~ ~~ . .
`: ve. :,<;.; '<>:. ,z-~,;~ { y
:,~I:;t~(t3~afe:Pa
.
.
' :~:y~,~.
>:
~
-~~
t'-
a~
~
~
'
`
'
'
~
'
~,~
.
.
:
~.,z ........... :... . dx,-,.:
i
...,.~:
x><:.f'` ,,.¢FO'
,.,
.
~..
.
.
,
:
r
~ ~n~e~>
~ ~
.
.
_:
..
,'~
~y~
>t<i
.:;:" rU,~,~<,r, o-e~,
.. K:4 ~=. k. ^{:r<
,?
s
~',~
..jncn'~i
.y `.
a»"`
;`:'S
~
_
..
:.
,,:~. 3s. y
. ......n.-~<°.,~:
;
i;'
.
.. ...G',-.lit.
{~ :~,.r.~ "ti;r _< :.,t4:.'.,a~,~e v.i.. 5~,
dt.
"o!•t:
''<; ri`:Si pp~~0~`j~L':>~ r~
h,:~`o°.
"
.v~.~3
~~,.~::"
\:..,
:r
~:%fY
- f
~::
k u5•
~
3
5
'
~
~'~
~'/~
X
~
~~
~
"~~~
~
_
,
y
. e
;
,r r
4
.
<.Lr
:`!.
~
"
':s~
:
.
.:.
.rn v
.
:
::
' : p, .
e
-
~
,
.
..
%~
i
~rtiS~..'~..
t= i ~Ii~v~
3."'~':_
r
;
}i~.~
.
°.
.
.z. .
.
?:
. :. a,.,<..d: : ,{i. :.'
~L C:' F.
tt. ,'`•/.?r r~~..{~'..~ ~ - ::SAS ~~~I~.~n. ..:':f <: .~:5
..Yti. El:'. .:E+.n _
C:
: ,.;•.Y-T '' s»`" :t'r~n
' y
~.
~.
. -< -.:
'
.the "{"2
•h
~~~~
ksr 3
.n
}' }
4/
'
i
5
^
.
~~.
.
.
.r..
..
~.
+:.... .:A.n._Y.'r"fi„3
:,
)„h
fv
.
.
l ^>
~7.
J
.~~ .s.i
T<, dE
' '
e. .
.. _ .m., ..,... ~,p-.,. p^.,.,n.
'SY.~. :r
')
< ,n('
~i:!' ~C~'?: .Y. h.,
: 1E'a'>`
~
..
,
. a
Y
Jl
r
t
'~~~~ j'~.j. - :'~'...
~`.
-.:,..: 61~roo
r.'
...
;::~_.:..,~... ...
~~~U`iG..-`%:Jt~ :=43.{ :_~:.''.
.a.,
.:
. _
.'~i
.
~'1 `<:. :. 'Y1 ~%)~.i...'~Ii'` Sy.:l Si:1:.,.14hy
..
.. tem. :~§:, :.
r,~sE.:
:
.
:,.
.y... .,._, , .. ..:.
..:....,
.
.`
; .
:
~ ~n`~H
~ .,.
S1
~a
P
~
.
,...:._...
Medfo
r~
OR
975
0 .
`?i .L [y~-
~~
~,`~L'v ~~ ~fF
a~!.~:r Y;y.
F~t `..Yta~l
.
.
.
.
': 9.a.::.:
-...:.r
.v :.. ., ..
'.~
..>::`i"nY
-..
'=.
. . .
L
..~...~<
~.
~~
- kh:'e^~f4•a';Mii`i' S4+,i`&R:
.
.
.
..
r
:
U, ,
..-.r :.. ...
..... ..... .. .
.
.
.
.
. o. v: c
.:c ^....__ __
_..
,:
Pro et1f: ~=Min ~=x_<
us+ e -
J ~:r ek:.Estates:':
~:
~. .
.a
\
.
:.
. S.,........ c .e.;.q..
~
_. .,'
.~g~...<. _.<~..~o-v-.. ':.'-.. :4 r'. ... .'3'.y. Ate„ _ -
•hk.~.l:~:eve..::~'E~C.`;:'~'+A~'M~:~a-i.'s:
~.'~ F
..r,.... ,.,<..__...,~.~1~51 ~
..
...
,~?lt
t..
;3'eet~ar~ ad:: Cei~r'a"j v;~
;,
~4 r
f=
..
,
,
...
~_
,.v.,. ,.~ .
»g.......:':
,~,.~._~e
l-
u~t
[
yF :
;
..~
,.
<
_..
.
' ~..
. ta
_
i
e
, .<
a.
:: ..~-tr
f- :::
Le al:
~ ' , .,~~ 231ti 1;~BA „T~~8600,-8800, x;8900
,..
~~
:°
,A >=
~ :.
i
:
,yti,
..:;
.
<
..v:...:.. ;
':>.. .,
...
.~ T''ly.`1iC `''
$:'i aY':
k:z %
r
.Y
LiCp;}' ~~ ~.~._.~._. :.: ..t,;? y...-.. :.-_,.<
i~ubli
o
V~ a
,
,F _ __
`'"
,..
:
Y~ ... artment..
p
. :.
Purpose
Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as
"Developer") regarding City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and
conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed. Gather information
from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development.
Special Requirements
Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to
existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural
drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the
existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the
existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the
flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the
connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and at
.~
<~
Mingus Creek Estates
1013112002
Page 2
the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands;
while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as
approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner
involved.
2. Right-of-Way Dedication: An approximate 12-foot section of Right-of-Way along the
western property boundary shall be dedicated for the widening and improvement of
Freeman Road.
Deferred Improvement Agreement: The Developer's consent will be required for the
creation of a deferred improvement agreement outlining the developer's responsibility
for the cost of improvements including but not limited to: Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk
bordering Freeman Road.
4. Storm Drainage Infrastructure: The developer shall develop a facility plan for the
storm drain collection and conveyance system which provides for run-off from and run-
on onto the proposed development, any future development on adjacent properties,
and any areas deemed by the City that will need to tie-into the proposed
development's storm water collection and conveyance system. It is our understanding
that the storm drainage infrastructure will be a private system, operated and
maintained by the property owners.
5. Driveway Lighting Plan: The Public Works Department does not recommend
standard street lighting for the driveway access to Mingus Creek Estates. However,
the Public Works Department suggests each residence be provided with an individual
driveway lighting system.
General
All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards,
the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special
specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City
Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the
proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer
shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD (and
Building Department, as applicable) for approval prior to implementation.
2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as
may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW), Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEO), Oregon Division of State Lands (DSL), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE),
affected irrigation districts, and ODOT.
3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor
shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the
~.
Mingus Creek Estates
10/31/2002
Page 3
Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy"
form (produced on Mylar®) and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD®, or other
form as approved by the City PWD.
4. As-bunt drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to
final approved construction plans that identify the locations and or elevations (as
appropriate) of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim
or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines,
valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street
section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; other below grade
utility line locations and depths; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy (on Mylar®), or an
approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable
AutoCAD® compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction
and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part ofi the
proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his
designee.
5. All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the
permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and
be so noted on the plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the
proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City
PWD and the Developer.
6. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub
materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either
recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ.
Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if
applicablej) should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines.
Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be
dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be
aligned a minimum of five (5) feet from the edge of the easement. If two or more City
owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum 20-foot width should
be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement, which
should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, all-weather,
drivable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the
City PWD.
Prior to the City PWD final approval of the construction plans for the proposed
improvements, the following should be submitted:
A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and driveway
layout, site access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement
plans for the proposed development.
i
Mingus Creek Estates
10/31/2002
Page 4
The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by
BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blocks should be completed on the
plans.
• A copy of written approval from the Department of Environmental Quality
authorizing an erosion control plan.
Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb
elevations, top of banks, ditch/channel inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the
proposed development's infrastructure will connect into existing improvements, prior to
final construction plan design and submittal for final approval.
10. Overhead power lines. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light,
Qwest, and Charter Communications, to convert any overhead electrical power,
telephone, or cable facilities within the proposed development to underground
facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements
associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with
the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities shall be by
and between the utility owners and the Developer.
11. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public
infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall
be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans and
as-built drawings.
12. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a
drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Mylar~' and in an acceptable
electronic form in AutoCAD® format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government
corner and the State Plane Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be
later modified to reflect any applicable "red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-
builts", at the discretion of the City Administrator or his designee.
Streets/Traffic
EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
Freeman Road
Cedar Shadows Way
Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street Lighting
Plan/Driveway Lighting Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD or
as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. The construction
drawings shall include clear vision areas designed to meet the City's PWD Standards.
~_
Mingus Creek Estates
10/3112002
Page 5
2. The Developer's engineer shall, at the cost of the Developer, evaluate the strength of
the native soils and determine the drivewaylstreet section designs to accommodate
the expected loads (including fire equipment) to be traveled on these driveways. If a
public street, then the City will design the required street section.
Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements
~ EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
12-inch Private Storm Drain Cedar Shadows Way
Mingus Creek
Developer's engineer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection,
retention, and conveyance system (SD System) which provides for storm water run-off
from and run-on onto the proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or
creek/ditch conveyance), any existing or future development on adjacent properties,
conveyed storm drainage, or surtace water flow, and any areas deemed by the City
that will need to connect-into the proposed development's SD System.
2. Root drains and under drains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain
lines, and shall drain to the street.
3. Any discharge points of the storm water facilities shall be designed to provide an
aesthetically pleasing, useful, and low maintenance facility, that are designed to
mitigate erosion, damage, or loss during a 100-year storm event; and that mitigate the
"attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these types of facilities.
2. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD
with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing
the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfall/intensity
curve, and City approved run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe
roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in the engineering calculations.
5. Storm drainpipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with watertight
joints. Provide concrete orsand-cement slurry encasement where required in areas of
minimum cover.
Sanitary Sewer
Ali sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System) design, construction
and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990
APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (BCVSA),
and the City PWD Standards, where applicable.
2. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for
construction of sewer laterals.
~~
Mingus Creek Estates
10/3112002
Page 6
3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval,
will forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon
completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the
Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the
construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final
form.
4. All testing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance
with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide
BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system
construction prior to final acceptance.
Water System
%k EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE
8-inch Ductile Iron Waterline Cedar Shadows Way
Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for
backflow prevention.
The Developer's engineer shall consult Fire District #3, and comply with any and all
suggestions regarding fire protection.
Site Work, Grading, and Utility Plans
Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the
plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final
grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line
width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations.
2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive
drainage away from the building or structure.
3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company, which reflects all
utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc.
4. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate
set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings.
`~
Mingus Creek Estates
10/31 /2002
Page 7
Rights of Ways/Easements
If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights (on a City approved
form), for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the
developer will coordinate with the State Water master the re-allocation of any waters
attached to lands no longer irrigable as a result of the proposed development.
~~
Attachment "E"
RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OP' APPROVAL
A final development plan, containing in final form the information required in the
preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six months of approval or by May
5, 2003. A six month extension maybe granted by the City upon the applicant's request
and for good cause.
2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal regulations
including, but not limited to, the Oregon Uniform Fire Code and Structural Specialty
Code.
3. The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the City
for approval as part of the final development plan. A suitable landscape and irrigation
plan shall show the types of tree's, shrubs, and ground cover that will be planted and the
irrigation for the rehabilitation of Mingus Creek and the Street Tree's.
4. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions (CC&R's) or
any comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of
the PUD as part of the final development plan.
An agreement with the Cedar Shadows Home Owners Association agreeing to joint
maintenance of Shadow Way.
H:\Planning\02067.wpd { (1
lass