Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - January 8, 2002CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA January 8, 2002 - 7:00 p.m. Q ~3 X33 Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 535 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 December 4, 2001, Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Page 1- 12 A. Public Hearing to review an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow temporary R. V Parking on a future townhouse site in the Twin Creeks Development. The subject property is located north of Griffin Oaks Drive in the TOD-MMR, Transit Oriented Development- Medium Mix Residential zoning district on Map 37 2W 03CD, Tax Lot 100. 13-29 B. Public Hearing to reviewanapplicationforBrookdaleGardensFinalPlanned Unit Development (PUD). The subject property is located near the intersection of Hamrick and Biddle Roads in the R-2, Residential Two- Family zoning district on Map 37 2W O1C, Tax Lot 1200 and 37 2W O1CA, Tax Lot 3100. 30 C. Discussion of New Year Planning Goals and Work Tasks VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes 12/04/2001 MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:00 P.M II. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Candy Fish, John LeGros, Don Foster and Wayne Riggs were present. Karolyne Johnson and Paul Lunte were absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director; Ken Gerschler, Community Planner; Matt Samitore, Community Planner and Dave Arkens, Planning Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, read an a-mail from Paul Morris of Mckeever/Morris notifying the City that the Twin Creeks Transit Oriented Development Master Plan was selected to receive a national Honor Award in the category of government adopted plans. I. MINUTES Commissioner Foster made a motion to approve the minutes from the November 7, 2001 meeting as presented. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; LeGros, abstain; Foster, yes; Riggs, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public Hearing to review a minor land partition that would create two lots on a 1.08 acre parcel located at A957 Hamrick Road. The subject property is located in the R-1, Residential Single Family zoning district and is identif+ed in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 01 BB, Tax Lot 100. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicants, Scott and Teri Higinbotham, are requesting a minor land partition that would create two lots. Topographically the Higinbotham property is lower than surrounding properties because of fill that was brought in for the New Naven Subdivision. There is currently a City of Certtral Point Planning Commission Minutes December /t, 2001 Page 2 small home on this property that is in the process of being demolished. The owner hopes to have the home demolished by the spring (2002). In 1999, the county made improvements on Hamrick Rd. which included: Curb, Gutter and sidewalks. The county also created one driveway access to the Higinbotham property, which will be shared by the proposed parcels. Mr. Gerschler presented a request, firom Bob Pierce, Public Works Director, that if the Commission approves the partition that a Dedication of Right of Way be signed for the area along Hamrick Road for the purpose of bringing the road up to City standards some time in the fiuture. Each parcel will need its own sewer hookup. The current sewer service is to small at this time and wit{ need to be upgraded when any development takes place. The Planning Department and Public Works will need additional information before any development takes place. Mr. Gerschler presented a petition from five neighbors indicating their disapproval of the partition. Their main concern is that the view they currently envoy of Mt. McLoughlin and other surrounding areas would be blocked if any development were to take place. Mr. Gerschler explained that land partitions are allowed in this zoning district and that legally the City cannot stop land owners from dividing their parcels. In the case of the Higinbotham property all conditions have been met and the partition is legal. One option for the neighbors is to purchase the property to prevent any development from happening in future. The agent for the applicant, Herb Farber, stated that he does not see any problems with the Dedication of Right of Way or any other conditions proposed by staff. The demolition will take a long period of time because the applicant is doing the work himself. A sewer line runs directly down the middle of the lot which would prevent a home from being placed at that location. The sewer line comes from the New Haven subdivision. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt Resolution 534, approving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of 37 2W 01 BB, Tax Lot 100 subject to the recommended conditions of approval. Commissioner Fish seconded to motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes IJecember 4, 2001 Page 3 B. Public Hearing to consider the Regional Problem Solving Report Creating a 50 year Urban Reserve and to Evaluate Prospective Growth Areas around Central Point. Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, invited the Planning Commission to make recommendations about Prospective Growth Areas to the City Council. Mr. Humphrey described the different Growth Areas to the Commission including CP-1, CP-2, CP-3, CP-4, CP/MD-1 and a small area a{ong Grant Road, south of Scenic Road. He also gave a brief overview of the discussion that took place at the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) on November 20, 2001. The CAC concluded that the area known as CP-1 is an area that should not be included as a potential growth area due to its distance from Central Point. The area known as CP-2 was the most controversial because of the agricultural lands and soil types. The CAC recommended that all CP-2, CP-3 and CP-4 be considered as Growth Areas. CP/MD-1 was not recommended because it is already partially developed and is too far removed from Central Point. Chuck Piland, Planning Commission Chairman, opened the meeting to the public and accepted comments about each candidate growth area. CP-1 Chris Pellett, of the Jackson County Citizens League (JCCL), expressed their opposition to this area being added to the Urban Growth Boundary of Central Point because the location is too far removed from the City. JCCL believes that development here would be growth inducing, and would result in urban sprawl. The soils are the type that could be used for effective agriculture. CP-2 The JCCL is concerned about the northwest portion of this area. Ms Pel{ett believes that this area should be protected since it contains Oak Savanna and farm land with good soils. Annamaria Picollo, a resident of this area, has tried to farm with no success. Mrs. Picollo feels strongly that the type of soils that are indicated on the maps are wrong and added that farming has not been economically feasible. if the northwestern portion of CP-2 is excluded there would be a hole in the fabric of the community which would encourage unnecessary sprawl and added infrastructure costs to the City. City of Central Point Planning Commission Min:etes December 4, 2001 Page 4 Sam Inkley, a resident of this area, concurs with Mrs. Picollo. Mr. Inkley stated that the soil is not viable for farming. Tom Jones, a resident of this area, believes it is inappropriate to build a residential neighborhood around and isolate an agricultural area and he would like to see all of CP-2 included in the Growth Area. Farm and subdivisions do not make good neighbors and he believes the farm land is not as viable as others believe. Mike Collins, a resident of the area, stated that he cannot make a living farming and is concerned about ground water availability as residential subdivisions are developed. Herb Farber believes that excluding this area eliminates cohesiveness around the City of Central Point. He also made the point that this land could still be used for farming in the future while in the urban reserve designation. CP-3 Jackson County Citizens League supports the inclusion of this area. CP-4 Jackson County Citizens League supports the inclusion of this area, including the 15 acre parcel that the RLRC thinks should be excluded. CP/MD-1 Jackson County Citizens League supports the inclusion of this area with a buffer area around the Denman Preserve. Chuck Piland closed the public portion of the meeting and the Planning Commission made its recommendation. CP-7 The Planning Commission recommends that this area not be included in the City's urban reserve at this time due to its distance from Central Point. Some Commissioners would like to see better access developed to I-5 at the Seven Oaks interchange. CP-2 The Planning Commission recommends that all of this area be included in the City's urban reserve based on comments received from the public. City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes December 4, 2001 Page S CP-3 The Planning Commission recommends that all of this area be included in the City's urban reserve. CP-4 The Planning Commission recommends that all of this area be included. In addition, this area should be extended west to Old Stage Road between Beall and the rear lot lines of Wells Fargo Road. The smaller tax lots located south of Scenic Road and east of Grant Road should be included in a new urban reserve area and ultimately added to the UGB. CP/MD-1 The Planning Commission recommends that the area in purple (on the map) known as Gibbon Acres and Forest Acres be included. In addition, the area between Downing Road and Table Rock Road and north to Elmhurst Road (which is outside the purple line) should be included to 'square off the boundary. Commissioner Fish made a motion to recommend these areas to the City Council for future urban reserve and expansion. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIII. ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 9:45 P.M. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: January 8, 2002 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit for 37 2W 03CD, Tax Lot 100 -Temporary RV Parking in the Twin Creeks Development Owner/ Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC Applicant: 1461 E McAndrews Road Medford, Oregon 97504 Pro er Description/ 372W03CD Tax Lot 100 - 0.57 acres Zoning: TOD-MMR Transit Oriented Development-Medium Mix Residential District Summary The applicant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for the temporary storage of Recreational Vehicles owned by new residents of the Griffin Oaks subdivision. The storage area is located where townhouses are being planned and the RV's will be relocated once a more suitable storage site can be found. Authority CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Conditional Use Permit. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment "A"). Applicable Law CPMC 17.65.010 et seq: TOD-MMR District CPMC 17.76.010 et seq: Conditional Use Permit Discussion During the process of implementing the new TOD zoning standards and approving plans for phase one development ofTwin Creeks, a need for Recreational vehicle parking became apparent. Design guidelines and CC&R's discourage and/or prohibit RV storage on individual lots forvarious reasons. Therefore it is necessary to create a separate RV storage area similar to the one in The Meadows on Freeman Road. ~~~ In the short term, the Twin Creeks Development Company would like to set up a temporary storage area so that they can get people with RV's into new homes under construction in Griffin Oaks. The long range plan is to create a permanent storage facility elsewhere in the TOD. The temporary site would then be developed for townhouses as originally planned (refer to Attachment B). City staff are discovering that everything in this development will take time to work out and that on- the-ground improvements sometimes require short-term fixes to achieve the master planned result. Staff supports the temporary solution proposed by the applicant and believes that the findings for approving a conditional use permit can be made. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Conditional Use Permit The Planning Commission in granting a conditional use permit shall find as follows: 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 the code; ^ The lot area is approximately 0.57 acres and is designed for twelve 10' x 20' parking bays and fifteen 10' x 40' parking bays. RV storage at this site is expected to more than adequately meet the storage needs for Griffin Oaks residents and/or during the next two years of development until a more permanent site can be found. 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; ^ Access to the parking area will be taken from a new 20 foot wide alley connected to Silver Creek Drive. Twenty seven parking bays have been shown on the site plan. The use of the temporary parking area will be limited to area residents and only occasional traffic is expected when they use their RV's. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. In making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehiculaz ingress, egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; ^ The temporary storage facility will not have any significant adverse effects on surrounding properties for various reasons. Adjoining tax lots are in transition and as new homes are occupied they will be accustomed to the temporary storage arrangement. A suitable alternate site should be found by the time the construction in Phase ~ is being completed. 'L .i ., J Fid The site under consideration is bounded on two sides by park area. The third and fourth sides are planned for rear lot access to town houses and a new street (Haskel extension) which are both part of later development phases. Vehicle circulation is as shown in Attachment B. No bt-ildings are proposed as part of the storage facility and the security fence that has been discussed is apowder-coated black chain link. Landscaping and lighting requirements may be made conditions of approval. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for will comply with local, state and federal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community. The proposed facilities will need to meet any applicable local, State and Federal regulations. That any conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the health, safety and general welfare. ^ An approval of this project would be subject to any recommended conditions of approval assigned by the Planning Commission (see Attachment D). Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. _ ,approving the Conditional Use Permit subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed Conditional Use Permit; or 3. Continue the review of the Conditional Use Permit at the discfetion of the Commission. Attachments A. Notice of Public Hearing B. Vicinity and Site Plans C. Applicant's Findings for Conditional Use Permit D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions V v . City of Central Point PLANNING DEPARTMENT Tom Humphrey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerscltler Community Planner Matt Samitore Community Planner Dave Arkens Planning Technician Notice of Public Meeting Date of Notice: December 18, 2001 Meeting Date: January 8, 2002 Time: 7:00 p.m. (Approximate) Place: Central Point City Hall 155 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 Conditional Use Permit that could allow a temporary RV pazking area to be constructed to the north of Griffen Oaks Drive in a TOD-MMR, Transit Oriented Development Medium Mix Residential zoning district. The subject parcel is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 37 2W 03CD, 100 The Central Point Planning Commission will review the Conditional Use application to determine if all of the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. If the Commission determines that the application meets the City's standards, a Conditional Use Permit could be issued . CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Variances are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Information and conditions oil the project approval. 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, January 8, 2002. ~~ 4 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 shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comment: 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 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY OF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear 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 Conditional Use Permit application as submitted. City regulations provide that the Central Point Ciry Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 5 155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (541) 664-6384 CENTRAL GREEN ;,~; I ~ ~ _~ _-----~ ~ ~ n ~~, ~~~ •' J \ltLt~ _ \\~~/i ~rk..~ ~. _~, _- ___ _" ~ _--- t ~ ~. ~, `~;1 ~~~, ~~, ,~ J~ se Permit proposed Conditt al U fog S twin Cree ~[ownhouse site area on future Griffin Oaks. used RV Parking with arking~ Pr°~ alley constructed With back in ~' the existing the north Access via and exit on 15 ~ Q, .~ 40' bays ~nterance on the south and .. , n° x 20 bays _..o~c~atitl{n ooksx~exhibit rv park.4lx Findings for Conditional Use Permit For Twin Creeks 1461 East McAndrews Road Medford, Oregon 97504 Twin Creeks is requesting an area to the north of Griffin Oaks Unit 2, Phase I be granted a conditional use permit for a temporary RV parking area. In the master plan work for Twin Creeks there was no area designated for RV parking. There is a definite market demand associated the housing being sold in Griffin Oaks. This site was selected with the expectation of using the base rock for parking area for the future foundation of the proposed townhouses upon a future application to the City. A search is being made to locate a permanent site in the area, however the demand is immediate and it will take some time to locate and acquire the appropriate site. Chapter 17, the City of Central Point Zoning Code prescribes findings for a favorable approval of an application in 17.76.040 and they are as follows: 17.76.040 Findings and conditions. The planning commission in granting a conditional use permit shall find as follows: A. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in the size and shape to accommodate the vse and to meet all other development and lot requirements of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code; Finding: The TOD Design Requirements and Guidelines do not address the RV Parking issues. This site is expected to be capable of handling the demand for RV parking until a suitable site can be found. 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 of effectively accommodate the traffic that is expected to be generated by the proposed use; 8 Finding: An alley severs this site, which should be able to handle the infrequent trips to the temporary RV parking area. Large traffic volumes are not expected. C. That the proposed use will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or the permitted use thereof. Sn making this determination, the commission shall consider the proposed location of improvements on the site; vehicular ingress and egress and internal circulation; setbacks; height of buildings; walls and fences; landscaping; outdoor lighting; and signs; Finding: This site is buffered from the recently platted and developing Griffin Oak neighborhood, by the park areas of this neighborhood. There will be security fencing around the parking area. Ingress and egress will be by the adjacent alley. The only signage expecting will be entrance and exit signs. This is a temporary facility. There will be no lighting, walls or buildings. This is on vacant land at the present, pending approval of future application for development there are not setback needed. D. That the establishment, maintenance or operation of the use applied for wi31 comply with local, state, and fedezal health and safety regulations and therefore will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding neighborhoods and will not be detrimental or injurious to the property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the community based on the review of those factors listed in subsection C of this section; Finding: This use will not adversely impact the neighborhood safety or welfare. This use is temporary and will therefor have no long lasting impacts on the neighborhood. It is expected that the use will move to an appropriate site in the near future. The highest and best use of this land is not RV parking. It is in the best interest of this development to find a satisfactory site as soon as practical for the RV parking to maintain the high standards set for this project. Many feel that there is no place for RV parking, however there are many owners of Recreational Vehicle's and with the prohibition of parking them in the residential neighborhood there needs to be someplace to park and store them. This concludes the findings for this application Respectfully, ~i~ ~-~ ~- Herbert A Farber ~0 r~ nal Use Qerrnit Proposed Condit {`, Turin Creeks Townhouse site. area on future yaks. Rv parking with Griffin proposed alley constructed arking. existing the north with back in p access via the the south and exit o~ 15 10' X 40' bays Enterance an . „ ~ r,' x 20' bays a a~ Ala Sco;e ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL This Conditional Use Permit is temporary in nature and shall expire on January 8, 2004 or upon development of a permanent storage site, whichever comes first. A one year extension may be granted at the discretion of the City Planning Commission. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 2. Any fencing constructed in conjunction with this approval shall satisfy the City's requirements for height, material, and safety and shall generally be compatible with the design and aesthetics of the Twin Creeks Development. Landscaping and lighting plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Public Works Departments prior to use of the temporary storage facility. ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT HEARING DATE: January 8, 2002 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Final Development Plan for Brookdale Gardens PUD Owner: Hamrick Road Investment Corporation P.O. Box 5163 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Neathamer Surveying 145 South Grape Street Medford, Oregon 97501 Summary: The applicants are requesting that the Commission review and approve the Final Development Plan for the Brookdale Gardens Planned Unit Development (PUD). Authority: CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to review Final Development Plans for PUDs. No public notice or hearing is required in this situation. Applicable Law: CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. Planned Unit Development CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. R-2, Residential Two-Family District Discussion• CPMC Chapter 16.68 describes the requirement and application processes for Planned Unit Developments. Initially, the applicant submits a preliminary development plan with maps describing lot configuration, property boundaries and a schedule of the planned completion dates. If the plan is approved by the Commission, the applicant is allowed a period of six months to provide the City with a copy of the Final Development Plan demonstrating that all of the conditions and requirements of the Preliminary Development Plan have been met. The Planning Commission then reviews the Final Plan and makes a decision which is followed by City Council consent. In this case the Preliminary Development Plan for Brookdale Gardens was approved by the Planning Commission but then reviewed and amended by the City Council. Preliminary plan approval was granted by the Council on November 16, 2001 in the form of the attached resolution (Attachment A). The Council's action was taken after asub-area master plan was developed by City staff for this area. The master plan gave the Council a context in which to evaluate the PUD. J 'v ~„ The City Council's approval of the Preliminary Plan was also contingent upon the successful development of full improvements for Brookdale Avenue. Since all of the right-of--way necessary for full street improvements is not controlled by the applicant, City staff has been involved in negotiations with an adjoining property owner in an effort to facilitate a solution. The Final PUD Plan (Attachment B) differs from the Tentative Plan found in Attachment A in that Brookdale Avenue has been realigned and developed as a full street. The outstanding dilema that staff hopes to have resolved by the meeting involves aright-of--way dedication from Ralph Van Der Star and a further street realignment to avoid having to remove an existing home on his property. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Planned Unit Development In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases its decision on the following standards from Section 17.68.040: CPMC 17.68.080 permits the Planning Commission to allow exceptions within a PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures and street widths if an applicant can demonstrate that the objectives of the zoning and subdivision code can be met. • The final plan depicts 161ots averaging 4500 square feet. The Council has authorized reduced front yard setbacks for side loaded garages and 5 foot side yard setbacks for single a hvo story homes. The proposed development is more consistent with R-i zoning and compatible with surrounding housing styles. The overall housing density is less that the maximum for the R-2 zoning district. CPMC 17.68.060 requires that applications for Final Development Plans contain in final form the information required in the preliminary plan (maps, measurements, construction plans, agreements and updated development plans. • An application with the required attachments has been received by the Planning Department. The submitted documentation appears to be in substantial compliance with the approved tentative development plan pending resolution of issues associated with full street improvements for Brookdale Avenue. Recommendation: The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the fnanl development plan for a planned unit development. 1. Approve the final development plan, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in City Council Resolution 927; or ~~ 2. Deny the final development plan based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission. 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments• A. City Council Resolution 927 B. Final Development Plan - Brookdale Gardens J .. J. V ~~~~~ RESOLUTION NO. _927, A RESOLUTION ISSUING A FINAL ORDER FOR THE BROOKDALE GARDENS TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION AND PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) CONTINGENT UPON THE CONSTRUCTION OF BROOKDALE A FULL WIDTH STREET (Applicant (s): Hamrick Road Investment Corporation) (37 2WO1C Tax Lots 1200 and 372WO1CA Tax Lot 3100) Recitals This matter came before the City Council of the City of Central Point, Oregon for hearings on Jul} 28, 2001; August 9, 2001; September 13, 2001; and October 25, 2001 after a council initiated review of the Planning Commission decision to approve a tentative subdivision and planned unit development. The City Council directed planning staff to prepaze a sub-area specific plan and considered the proposal in that context. The City Council reviewed the City staff reports, considered the recommendations of other professionals, and heard testimony and comments on the application from effected property owners and all persons wishing to be heard on the matter. 2. Applicant(s) has/have revised an application for tentative plan approval for a land subdivision and PUD on 2.58 acres, located East of Hamrick Road in the City of Central Point. Oregon. Revisions to the application are consistent with the sub-area specific plan options endorsed by the City Council and/or include conditions imposed by them. Now. therefore; BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CENTRAL POINT, OREGON, AS FOLLOWS: Section I. Criteria Applicable to Decision. The following chapters of the Central Point Municipal Code apply to this appeal: A. Chapter 1.24, Public Hearing Procedures; B. Chapter 16.10 et. seq, Tentative Plans C. Chapter 17.24 et. seq. R-2, Residential Two Family District D. Chapter 17.68 et. seq. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Section 2. Granting of Approval. The City Council hereby grants applicants request for tentative subdivision and planned unit development and amends the decision of the Planning Cammission as follows: Council Resolution No. _ (11152001 ) >~ 16 resulting from sub-area specific plans, discussion during City Council hearings, recommendations of staff and the conditions listed in Section 4. Section 3. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of L.aw. The City Council hereby adopts the following findings and conclusions of law in support of its decision in Section 2: 1. Tentative approval of the Brookdale Gardens planning applications were suspended until they could be considered in the context of a larger sub-area specific plan which has been done. 2. Ample opportunity has been given for public hearing and comment by affected parties in the sub-area specific plan. 3. The application and tentative plan are in the correct form and contain all of the information required by CPMC 1 b.10. 4. The application and planned unit development are in the correct form and contain all of the information required by CPMC 17.68. 5. All parcels meet the minimum area and width requirements for lots in the R-2 zone as set forth in the tentative plan, and the PUD, and such parcels meet the general requirements for lots contained in CPMC 16.24.050. Section 4. Conditional Approval. The application for tentative plan for subdivision and PUD herein is hereby approved, subject to the conditions set forth on Exhibits "A","B", and "C" attached hereto by reference incorporated herein, imposed under authority of CPMC Chapter 16.36. Also allowing a 12 foot front yard setback for side loaded garages, and allowing a 5 foot side yard setback for both one and two story buildings. Reconfiguring a street connection with Hamrick Road and the adjacent property to the north, and authorizing the applicant to work with the Public Works Staffto clear up language in the Public Works Staff Report. Passed by the City Council and signed by me in authentication of its passage this ~ lB~day of ~,~i,,~.~,~~~- , 2001. A T: City Representative Approved by me this 1~c~ ~~e~ ~~ ~vlayor Bill Walton day of ~ 2001. ~~~~ Mayor Bill Walton ' Council Resolution No. _ (11152001 ) l .i '. ~~ ~~~~~~ . r~~. ~~~~~~ r j~E~~i{~~~~~ ii ~ '~~` t jjX~~~~~ ri,~ n ~~ .~° ...., _ aye ~S j ~„ ~~ ~`:`~ ~_ ~ t^~` ~y ~ ~Y ~~ 1 :i' ~ ~ ~~ :, ~ ~o ~~; s i ~ ~'` t ~ 1 iS ~ ~ ~ a3 li ~~ I ~~° 1 ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ a ~~~s ~~ ~ - ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~~ L ~~ t g~~~ a F ~~~ ro ~~ ~~ ~ "- ~ ""~ ~a ~~ ~~ o~ ~z ~~ `~ ~v ~ tft i~ ,~ ~ Exhibit B PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMIN7;NDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL i. Prior to fmal plat approval, the applicant shall submit to the City a copy of the proposed covenants, condifions and restrictions (CC&Rs) for the Brookdale Gardens PUD, 2. The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected pub3ic agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the Brookdale Gardens PUD. Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plaf approval. 3. 1fie applicant sha31 comply with all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development and construction of the Brookdale Gardens PUD. H:Wlanning\01027.wpd v i_ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT Exhibit C pEPARTMEIJT OF PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPORT for BROOKDALE GARDENS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW PW#00007 Date: June 5, 2001 Applcant: Hamrick Road Investment Corporation (HRIC), Post Office Box 5163, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Bob Neathamer, Neafhamer Surveying, 145 Grape Street, Medford, Oregon 97501 Property Owner. Projecft: Location: Legal: Zoning: Area: Unfts: Plans: Report By: Purpose Star (1200); Coryell and HRIC (1300); and DeCariow Homes Inc. (3100) Brookdale Gardens P.U.D. North of E. Pine Street; East of Hamrick Road, and West of Meadowbrook Drive. T37S, R2W, Section 01C, tax tots 1200; T37S, 122W, Section 01CA, tax lot 3100. R-2 2.59 Acres (approximately). 17 spaces (15 pad lots, 1 "pocket parr', and 1 'remnant' lot). 1 page entitled "Tentative Pian Bcookdale Gardens, a Planned Commun'sfjP, dated May 8, 2001 Public Works Department Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer') regardng City Public Works Department (PWD) standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed planned unit development. Gather information from the Developer/Engineercegarding the proposed development. Special Requirements Exisfi'nglnfrasfruciure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanftary sewer, storm drain systems; natumi drainage systems; etc.,) will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective {eves of service or operation of the infrastructure faalities, and that the existing infrastructure faalfties have either adequate capaaties to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastnrcture as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastnacture, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; white maintaining or improving the existing leve{ of service of the affected faality, as approved by (as applicable), the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner involved. 2. Resldenfial Lane: The Developer is proposing the use of public streets with a mod~ed residential lane street section, a street outset, and a private street. The PWD has approved development of this residenfiai lane concept on Sheftenvood, Griffin Creek Estates, Lindsey Meadows, Beall Estates IV, and Packwood Terace Estates subdivisions. Typically residential lanes have been designed to serve a maximum of 12 lots. The proposed layout wilt serve 15 lots in one direction. The Developer is proposing a `residential lane" public street with a 25- faot-wide paved section, with 2-foot wide rofied curbs on one side of the street. The applicant has also proposed parking on one side of the street: the south side of the street. The PWD is concurring with the requirement chat parking be limited to one side with a further restriction that .:., `~ Brookdale Gardens PUD Tentative Plan Review PWD StaJjReport Page 2 on{y automobiles and pick-ups be allowed to park on fhe street. We would also recommend that no parking be allowed in the first 100 feet of Brookdale Avenue from Meadowbrook Drive, to faciitate vehicular turning and access movements assoaated with this intersection. We would also request that Brookdale'Avenue' be renamed as Brookdale 'Lane' to coincide with the City's classification of the street as a "residenfiai lane' and not a `standard residential street'. The residential lane standard for this proposed development with parking permitted on one side, with a rolled curb/gutter section, would have the following minimum requirements: R A 24-foot wide paved section, with a 2 percent crown O A 2 foot vide rolled curb and gutter section O A 5-foat wide sidewalk section (6-inch thick with strengthened edge) located on both sides of the street with suitable wheel chair ramps at aii intersections. n A 2.5 footwide strip of {and to be located behind the sidewalk for installation of water meter service boxes, fire hydrants, etc. Q Requires a 45-foot wide right-of--way. Street parking allowed an one side only. ~~ The applicant has proposed 4.5-foot sidewalks and a 1.5 foot meter strip which are acceptable to the public works department. The applicant is proposing to utilize a street cross section that has a 36-foot-wide right-of-way and which will be increased to meet minimum residenfiai lane design stanriards when the property to the Sotrth(37 2W 01 C Tax Lof 1200) is developed. The developer has proposed a paved section containing a 2 inch Cdt of asphalt versus the normally required 3 inch section. if development occurs to the South of Brookdale Avenue during the course of the next flue years the developer of that property will be responsible for grinding tx overlay of Brookdale Avenue. if a period ofi five years elapses and no development to the South of Brookdale Avenue has occurred, Hamrick Road investment Corporation viii be responsible through pertomtance bond to complete the improvemenfs necessary to meet the requirements of a standard residential lane. li is further recommended ttrat the minimum setback from a garage to the right-of-way shall be 18 feet. it is the PWD's understanding that the 32 foot vridih of the east properly boundary of the park is for future road purposes. Since the right-ot-way for any road connection would be either 40- or 45-feet-avide, this should be illustrated on the plat with the designation of the area for future road development. 'Chas wiii reduce the area available for the park from 11,A21 square feet (sf), to approximately 10,660 sf (with a ~40 foot right-of-way) or 10,185 sf (with a 45 foot right-ot way). It is further recommended that the Developer be required to develop this street section with the development of the proposed project io the northern limits of the project Parking could be made available on this short section, with a temporary concrete barrier rail or other suftabie barrier placed at the northern end of the parking area to prevent vehicular aocx;.ss to the north, until such time as the adjoining properties are redeveloped. 3. Private Street As discussed with the Developer, this private street is only for aaess to 15 with access from Brookdale lane. There will be no direct vehicular access io Hamridk Road. it is recommended that a rolled gutter section (v~ith suitable comer radii) be installed at the end of the private drive/connection to the radius of Brookdale Drive. l'he Developer has proposed to have a utility easementto be"12 feet wide, to faclitate the placement of two or more CityBCVSA utilities within this easement, the easement would have is be a minimum of 12 feet vide. Although currently the developer is providing an easement of 12 feet, should the property to the South of Brookdale Avenue be developed the dimension of the easement vviil increase ~; ~ 21 Brookdale Gardens PUD Tentative Plan Review PWD Stafj'Report Page 3 from 12 to 15 feet. 4. Sheet Lights: The Developer has requested the use of private sfreef lights in lieu of the standard street lights required by the City. PWD would concur with the use of private street lights on the public and private streets, as long as the street tights installed provide the same or befter illumination of the street and sidewalk areas as typically provided by the City's standard 5800 lumen street tight, at 200 foot spadngs. The street 1'~ghts would Ue either privately (i.e homeowners association) owned, operated, and maintained (including power consumption costs); owned, operated, and maintained by the City at the homeowners expense; or owned, operated, and maintained by Padfic Power (excluding the private street). 5. RRV/D Facilities: If the development will require the alteration or modification of eMSfing RRVID irrigation fadlities, then the Developer should be required to coordinate with and perform the required atterationslmodifications to accommodate the proposed development and maintain the RRVID fadlities. it is suggested that the mod cations to the RRVID fadiities may include developing a surface water conveyance feature that may be incorporated into the improvements of the pocket park, if feasible. 8. Utility Easements: A dedication of a 10-foot wide public utility easement (PUE) should be required of the Development's property along the adjusted right-of-way on Hamrid< Road, and adjacent to (behind) the City's right-ofavay/easements of Brookdale 4ane, along both sides of the public and private street section "A" of Brookdale t.ane. A 10-foot wide PUE should also be dedicated immediately to the west of the private street section B easement boundaries. 'the public utility easements within the private street road sections shalt be changed from "public util'~ty easement to "City/BGVSA oasement". Any City infrastructure installed outside the City's right-of--way will require suitable easement dedication, meeting current minimum required easement widths for infrastructure separation for installation, maintenance, and repair. 7. Sic~hf-Triangles: Field review of the subject property's access to Meadowbrook Drive indicates that the sight-triangles can be developed that afford the proper sight triangles for a local street connection to the collector streets. These types of street intersections require establishment and maintenance of a minimum 55-foot sight triangle. This will restric( development on lots 1 and 3. ft is also recommended that cots 1 and 3 take driveway access off of Meadowbrook Drive, nearthe northern boundary of lot 3, and the southern boundary of tot 1, as safe driveway ingress and egress from these lots off of Brookdale Lane may not be able to be maintained. Current City standards require that the throat of the driveway be located a minimum of 25 feet from the right-of--way intersection of two-sfreets. Sight vision triangles at the park of 25 feet may also restrict development in these areas. 8. Pocket Park and Landscape Buffers: The PWD is encouraged by the proposed development of the pocket park within the development, due to the limited amount of backyard space available on the proposed lots. It is the PWD recommendation that these park fadlities be designed, developed, and constructed by the developers (at the developer's expense) as park of the development of this project. it is our understanding that this pocket park will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association established with the development. 22 Brookdale Cnrdens PUD Tentative Plan Review PWAStajjReport Page d 9. Sidewalks: Sidewalks within this proposed development (both private and pub(ic) w'iQ be designed to accommodate a single unit truck, and the weight requirements of Fire District No. 3. They shall be constructed of portland cement concrete with a minimum depth of 6-inches. 1f1. Wafer Alsfributiorr System: it is recommended that the water system for the development and neighboring properties to the noc#h and south shalt be master planned, to not onty accommodate the needs of the proposed Development, but to provide for mainline valves and stub-outs for future main distribution networks and "reinforced looping' of the adjoining properties to the north and south. The water distribuEion for the proposed Development shall be of "reinforced loop` design; a minimum of two connections wits need to be made to the City's distritwtion system: one connection to the 12-inch line in Meadowbrook Drive, and a second connection to the 16-Inch-diameter line in Hamrick Road. The water fines shall be sized to accommodate alt fire demand flows of the development (minimum 8-finch-diameter). General 1. Ail 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 shalt l>e submitted in writing by the Developers engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to implementation. 2. Developer shalt 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 (DEQ), Oregon Division of State Lands {DSL), U.S. Army Corps of F~rgineers (ACOE), affected irrigation districts, and JC Roads, as applicable. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department,wlth `as-built' drawings. If feasible, the DevelopeYs 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. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-fine' 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 Intern{ 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 aitemative format, of construction drawings, and ff feasible, an acceptable AufoCAD® compatible drawing electronic fife to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or,his designee. 4. Alf 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 feast one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shaii be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer. .; _ n Brookdn{e Gardens PUDTentative Plan Review P{f'D SIaJJ'Reporr Page 5 S. if applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, dear 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. 6. Easements for City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]) 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 of 20-foot width for the easement should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which should dearly indicate that easements must be maintained wffh suitable, driveable veh'scular access to City public infrastructure fadlities, as detennined by the City PWD. 7. Pricy to the City PWD final approval of the constnrction 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. ^ The plans relating fo the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature biod<s should be completed on the plans. 8. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations (i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, d'ddrldrannei inverts, street elevations, etc.), to which the proposed development's infrastructure will conned into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal for final approval. 9. Overhead power Gnes. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Padfic Power and Light, US West, and TGI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable fadlities within or adjoining the proposed development (excluding ihose major power and telephone facilities that are aligned along Hamrid< Road) to underground fadlities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements assodated with the proposed development. At! agreements and costs assodated with the conversion of these fadlifies from ovefiead to underground faaTities, shalt be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 10. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the locafion of the assodated easements with these fadlif'ses, shall be accurately portrayed (both horizontally and vertically) on the construction plans, as-built drawings, and final plat map. 11. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Myiar®~and in an acceptable e{ectronic form in AutoCAD~ format. The Final Plat shall be tied to a legal Government comer and the State Plane Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified )o reflect any applicable `red-Vine" changes noted in the construction `as-builts", at the discretion of the Cify Administrator or his designee. 11. 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 ~~ Broohufitre Garderu PUD Tentative Plan Review Pri'DStaJjRepon Page 6 coordinate with fhe State Watermaster the ne-allocation of any waters attached fo lands no longer irrigable as a result of the proposed development. StreetsfTraffic Existing Improvements - Hamrick Road -Secondary Arterial. Guaent ROW 60' wide, varying street width. Right-of Way required: 50 feet east of centerline. Meadowbrook Drive: Varying street widths with 60-foot right-of-way widths. 1. Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shaft indude a Street Lighting P{an. Additional street lights wits also need to be installed or existing street lights possibly modified along Meadowbrook Drive to afford proper lighting of the public street intersection with the proposed development. 2. The City PWD, at the cost of the Developer, shad evacuate the strength of the native soils and determine fhe street section designs for Brookdale Avenue in arxordance with the City PWD Standards. Minimum street section for this street shalt be as follows: - 3-inches Class `B" A.C. (After Southerly development) - 6-inches of 1"-0" crashed rodk - 8-inches of 4"-0" cnrshed rodk (City ofi Medford spedfications), - Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade. Street section (exdudsng the asphalt concoete portion) shall be extended underneath and a minimum of two feet beyond the rolled curb and gaffer section. 3. As applicable, slop signs and traffic delineation (.e. "stop bars") shad be required and installed by the City PWD (at the Developer's expense) at the proposed development's intersection with Meadowbrook Drive, tJo parking signs and curb painting shall be installed by the City PWD (at the Developer's expense) along the first 100•feet of Brookdale [.are from the intersection with Meadowbrook Drive, Storm Drainage, irrigation improvements During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system (SD System), which shall provide for and convey storm waterrun-off from and run-on onto the proposed development (erther surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance), the Developer shat{ demonstrate that the storm water flows from the completion of the proposed development (and at any lime prior to completion of development) do not exceed predevelopment #lows; or that existing eapadty, allowances, or provisions have been made (and approval of the appGcabie properties owners and regulatory agendes has been obtained), which accommodate any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows. The bevetoper and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to,be used in the engineering calculations. ' 2. The developer shalt develop a faciity plan for the storm drain collection and conveyance system which provides for ran-off from and run-on onto the proposed development, any future development on adjacent properties, and any areas deemed by the City that wilt need to tie-info the proposed development's storm water coitedion and conveyance system (i.e tax lots to the 25 Brookdare Gardens PUD Tentative Plan Review PWD StaJjRepor! Page 7 north and south of the proposed development). ft is our understanding that the storm drainage infrastructure within the proposed PUD will be a public system, operated and maintained by the City. Storm drainage conveyance pipe stub-outs, through suitable easements in the development, will need to be provided and storm drain conveyance lines may need to be up-sized as necessary to acxommodate existing and future developed property storm water run-off from the applicable tax bts (i.e. `Area of Benefit") located to the north and south of the proposed development. if the storm drain lines are needed to be up-sized from the size necessary to accommodate the proposed development and the storm water flows from the existing development of the tax tots (i.e. 'Area of Benefit") north and south of the proposed development, to provide additional capaaty to accommodate the projected future developed flows of fhe Area of Benefit tax lots, then the PWD would propose to compensate the Developer for fhe upsmng above a minimum pipe s¢e of 24-inch-diameter as per the methodology approved by the City Counai. 3. Developer's engineer shalt provide a site drainage plan with the faal'dies being designed, at a minimum, fo acxommodate a 10 year stomt event. The SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging, or must be provided wifh adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing public storm drainage faalities. Any private storm drain system exceeding 3-inches in diameter shall be designed to directly connect to the pubic storm drain system (at a manhole or curb inlet only), and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. 4: Roof drains and underdrains shat[ not be directly connected to public storm drain tines, and shall drain either to an on-site private storm drain system or discharge through a City approved `pop-up drain' located in the landscape area behind the City's sidewalk 5. Prior io City PWD construction pian~review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculatons and profile plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfalUnfensHy curve, and City approved run-off cmeffiaenfs, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coeffiaents, etc., that are used in the engineering calculations. 6. Storm drain pipe materials shall be PVG, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints meeting the requirements of ASTM D3212, F477, and C,443M, as applicable. Provide concrete {in areas within the rights-of--way) or sand-cement scurry (n areas outside the rights-of--way) encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 7. If inietslcatch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet in depth from the tip of the inlet to the bottom of the catch basin, then the inlets and catch basins shall be designed to afford suftab-e 'man' entry for maintenance/deaning purposes. 8. Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots for private and public storm drains. Plot HGL on profile or provide a separate profile drav~sng that indicates fhe HGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleansing veloaty (minimum 2.0 feet per second) and fiave adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm. 9. The Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. If so, then fhe pertorated storm drain system shalt be designed to have adequate capacities to: 2~ Brookdale Gardens PUD Tentative Plan Review Pfr'ASlaJJR¢port Page 8 t7 Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with fhe minimum cleaning velocities and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and D Minimize sifts, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native sons into the SD system. The plotted HGL shall include both the groundwater infiltration, and the storm waterrun-off and run-ot~ infiows into the SD system. i0. Maintain a minimum 0.2-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes and curb inlets, unless flow through velocities during the design storm event exceed 3.0 feet per second (fps). if flow veloaties exceed 3.0 fps and the inlet pipe is in relatively direct (i.e. f 80 t 5 degree) horizontal alignmenf wish the outlet pipe, then as a minimum, the pipe slope shah be maintained through the base of the manhole or curb inlet. if flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps, and there is other than relatively direct horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, then a minimum of a 0.1 foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes or curb inlet must be maintained. A bottom channel shall be formed in the manhole or curb inlef base to mitigate transitional losses and enhance flow through the manhole or curb inlet. 11. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable, Sheet flow surface drainage towards the Hamrick Road right-of--way is unacceptable. SanitarySewer A11 sanitary sewer cogection and conveyance system (SS System} design, construction and testing shaft conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ,1990 APWA Standards,.Oregon Giiapter, 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. 3. The City upon completion ofi initial cons#nrction plan review and preliminary approval, wilt forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the p{ans by the Developer's engineer, and , . following the fmal approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Pub{ic Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 9. Alt testing and video inspection of tines and manholes shalt be done in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, N reports and cert~cation of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System - Existing 1ti-inch-diameter wafer line installed in Hamrick Road and 12-inch-diameter Meadowbrook Drive. T. The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capaaties for fhe proposed development, which meet Fire District 3 requirements, with fire hydrant placement as ~. 2'7 Brookdale Gardems PUD Temtatrve Plam Review PHD StaJjReport Page 9 approved by the City PWD and Fire District 3. Maximum sparing of fire hydrants shall be 300 feet, unless otherwise approved by Fire District No. 3 and City PWD. The water system shall be of reinforced flow (`looped") design, wish valved connections (taps) fo the e~asting 12-indr diameter waterlines in Meadowbrook Drive and the 16-indrdiameter line in Hamrid< Road. Wafer service lateral connection stationing and size shalt be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. 2. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division (OHD) and City requirements for backflow prevention. 3. Water service meter boxes shall be City PWD spedfied `Christy" brand meter boxes, that accommodate the Sertsus touch-read equipment. City PWD will perform aU "hot' connedtons to active water lines (including service lateral taps), unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. Sife work, Grading, and Utility Plans 1. Grading plans should have originallexisting grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened boric, and final grade confour tines are overlaid on fop of the existing grades and are in a heavier tine width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled wdh elevations. 2. All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, andlor crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the iwilding. 3. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all util"dy 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 fo the as-built drawings. 5. Ail fill placed in development shalt be engineered fill that is suftably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and current adopted UBC standards, except for the upper 1.5-#oot of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 28 Rm•labs.n M M>/•/a39.dJ xv we(N•/a9e.93 PREPARED FOR: VICINITY MAP M7r r0 S~ALF ~ ~ X ~x wm•rab4~ CCAA M MN•r~sT~b g ~ q MMsI•lasb.x R t Imi at(N•1136..'Jb auu ww - I r" I Iw I I !x S T!V(LOi i]00 O! cn} ~ ~ I 703AI' ~ .- Wq, •3T•14•f I I la2Orn NAMRIGK ROAD /NVL57MG'NT CORTORAT/ON ^ t0 Eox 3169 0ent~a/ Polnt, Oregon 17307 ~` FINAL PUD PLAN BROOKDALE GARDENS A PLANNED COMMUNITY taaea n ero np-enlese ate-LVater a Section 1. ToMabITJ 3J SduM, Ro'kje 1Ybet, M/la/nffe MxMan, Crly oI Central Pont, Jxkx» Loufy LYegdn. 9T aw ac TPX LOT 14pJ , I Dfpy I LEGEND: I / ~ I I 1 ~4 O i~ I~ ~_ ~~ t ~ 1 O ~ O (Y~ © h O ~ m® ~ 9.9633 15 ~ ~ ~I, I ~ 9.199 SP ~ 4; I% 5F '' 4,196 5F ' 9,,% 5f' ~ 9.,X9 ~ 4; ISB 5F 9., $F 4p91 S° a 9.39'l SP 4,101 SF ~ ~ 9,IM'F y4+ p ~ ~~. ( ~ 99'1 p'RE P n ' •, 300 y ........................................................................................._.............. _.......i_ ` ~ _ iti BROOKDALE'Al'E'NUE' ! -'-"---I --~ ~-"k~ ' ~i 1 569.31'14'W 903.90 _..... _.... _ . ....................... ............. ............ ....^~. .._... _.... m ............... L . ............... ..... I ............................................................................................... B30' 60' ~-~tI -b=,,,~J - - ' 1 ~ 1~'~, 91 3W OIL ~ 4* iii T „>pi 1]00 `? " ip~mp 10•rcp I 9, 5F 6y69 S^ » I:one ~ I e O~ :ralf lrpmlli r . ~°-'-^! _______. _____ pews flan ss o' 6sa 31 aW o1c iAX LOT IILY> h IN' Wal1> OI anl>Ihj pamr pulp. O IMGaI¢> m rsnlx.~ p> o Imeae> a ¢,nlrg eleac-c pea<>lal -p- I,alcae> m..mug go> I -ax¢- I,wkot« m e,n<rg w.meoa pw.r n.e.v ® Iwea.> ot.,nlrq>n, • IMkut¢> m e,ytYg <Wb tele.Nk peental. mvpoa. ~ 4~ee m «nt>q>wl e Imcp1¢> m e,nlry falepw D•~+~^I. -1- I,m[q.>menM1fYg IVUO I.IgA:me lW ->3- I~eo[e>me,ntYg fml! . I,~t.. ~,...1.~ ~t_..1.. 1 . C (Ij IMCple>p~«m Mj nlWm IMlcal¢, al .nl>IF31F¢hp-0:1. mOMI¢. d ~,vx.le>m.,nleg..otw apq>I m..nlxy pnwt x~ur <iawl. • INlcol.. m.,MIFj mts IM auN M. ~f9- IMkale>a:.,MtlrA nleXm -v- IM:[al¢>mexnLLr],nl[r'Irc. n Iwrme>o, e.m.y>v.. ~ I epw:~.t:i:~y.o•,...~...t. al s '" ,••l of e ~ ' 59.-i. IMic a •Ji' .m.wl,ueue,4Tt blm,4. l o! R~ >r I::mccle> ¢ so~:,w,t,u.l.e.y:t Irk..gle. Ms[ellOneoc> Ptbevbtlp:y: •a nl pp•~x. • r~p . e ~ wv a rw+e. . plpe...<. .w.: lev r i < I. e>m loy x~sr. vk e lM zW a1c, To, L91f: laoo 2w OIL. Tau Lao-. 1300 ]W OILA tO+ LOI. 91~ ~Fm'^ ___.._. r e-h¢ ..____........11 _ Ifmont _ t eo„ i Cie'w - t7 Cud 3, aw oic ,CeCb>f01 Ib~~ TAX LOl lgyj ~^~ 10' ybofa stp q-pln cmcmart. e ~_ la'M I ~ 10'Re ter. ' ""`"` t~a """" REDUCED ~~ LOCAL STREET SECTION ~~ SCALE PLOT y~r rvei ,a OGLE REGISTERED '~ ~ PROFESSIONAL ; ~, LAND SURVEYOR ,e~r~e NOTES: Z n R a ~~~v 2~i~ • ~ "I Ign. pn - re, Let n,mwr 9, aW Blc 1900 , 1 va Acre> L^ . TOX Lot fintcr 39 2W OILA 3100 • 0.65 Acre> OREGON TOLOI ALfea(3e = 3.59 ACfC9 JULY 19 1994 Contour mtervol - i rddt ROBERT V. NEATHAMER mtlex Contour = 5 Foot 2675 (Penerfa/ IJaEe /2/3//02 S:VIam'ICk ReW Itue>Ime,f.> Lap~GFOOtcble 6mdem, FUDNnaI Develcpm me M ~ ~ ~ ° en[ plmp0 ~ aw o1cA I rAx Lor 900o I I tcp dxk I o/ c.r0 ~- o/ M Rm•rabap5 nv Wf)•lafd.40 M wNN.raNJ Xi edge O! FOVCmGnf Rm•l]65 Ld M Wi/•IIb[Gb M 4'(eJ•1361J0 kv W.J•r]MJ 99 vvl M We/•raba.49 Itl-lyc cq.,l;,,,e. M a4(N•116a33 Basis of Bearings: ,lk Ed>[ Lira Ot OLC X> located In the Sec;nl.es[ LNe- eer OI `xcelm I. TonM1::p 3, ELV th. Rem~e ^I 2 l ~5 J 4 O tl:e WIICn:ctte Y IdICT, Jxk>Cn Gcvn[y. e5 ' P-c9cn. 2cler to Fllcd a.'vey Wmtxr 95q DATUM: Elevatk.n m chom Fereon, cre t>dxd o^ tK Gl,y O( LCMrdI POIn[ Pbll>FKtl vertlCal DC:utn, O: Gl;y o! GcMrol Font statlm r:vnbcr 33. PREPARED BY: Neethemer Surveying, Jnc. 304 South Cen trel Aven l+e Medford, Oregon 8750/ Phone (54IJ 732-2869 FAX (54IJ 732-I3B2 PROlECf NUMBER: 8D037 DeTE: December f3, 2D01 Sheet I OF I ®Lin PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMORANDUM DATE: January 8, 2002 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Discussion of New Year Planning Goals and Work Tasks Discussion Planning staff thought that it would be productive to have an informal discussion with the Planning Commission about new year planning goals and work tasks. Subject matter could include, but is not limited to; Comprehensive Plan amendments and municipal code revisions, Commissioner training, meeting protocol, legal decisions affecting planning law and DLCD activities. City staff will be prepared to summarize last year's planning activities and pose some possible work tasks for 2002. Please come prepared to interact about land use planning related items of interest to you. Action The Planning Commission is encouraged to invite public input, ask questions of staff and area residents and make recommendations to staff about the direction in which it would like to see the Planning Department to move. ~0