HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - July 2, 2002CITY OF CF,N'CRAI, POINT
PLANNING COMMISSION AGF,NDA
July 2, 2002 - 7:00 p.m.
Q £i~ Cs~
Next Planning Commission
Resolution No. 551
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 June 18, 2002, Planning Commission Minutes
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
VI. BUSINESS
A. Public meeting to review an application fora 10 lot subdivision known as Birchwood
Village Planned Unit Development (PUD). The subject property is located near the
intersection of Circlewood Drive and Beall Lane in the R-2, Residential Two-Family
zoning district on Map 37 2W 12CC, Tax Lot 6300.
VII. MISCELLANEOUS
VIII. ADJOURNMENT
City of Central Point
.Planning Commission
June 1 g, 2002
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A"[' 7:00 Y.bi.
II. ROLL CALL:
ChairmauChuck Pitand, Rick Perry, Candy Fish, John LeGros, Paul Lunte anti l~aync Riggs
were present. Don Foster was absent.
Also in attendance were Ken Gerschler, Comnnmity Planner; Matt Smnitore, Community
Planner, and Chris Clayton, Senior Public Works Tecluiiciatt.
[II. CORRCSPONDENCE
There was no correspondence.
IV. 1iINUTES
Commissioner LeGros made a motion to approve the minutes from the June 4, 2002
meeting as amended. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Perry;
yes, Fish, yes; LeGros, yes; Lunte, abstain and Riggs, yes. Motion passed.
V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES
There were no public appearances.
VI. BUSINESS
A. Keview of the Final Development Plan for Phase 2 (27 lots) of the Miller Estates
Planned Unit Development. The subject property is located on Jackson County
Assessment Plat 37 2W 03B Tax Lot SOT.
Matt Samitore, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department staff report. The final
development plan appears to match thepreliminary development plan. All ofPhase II are within the
100-year flood plain. The Cityis cun~ently working wi@~ Hammond Engineering to have a new flood
study completed for Griffin Creek. 'This may have an impact on Phase I. The special setback for
streams is in effect for Phase IL No stn~ctures can be built within 25' from the top of the stream
bank. The flood way needs to be delineated on the construction drawings to mal<c sure none of the
lots or the RV parking area is IocaCed in the Iloodway. Anew RV parking plan will need to be
submitted and acccptal forthe RV storage arc<t alter the flood way is shown. ')'here are other issues
involved with the Final Development Plan for Phase 2 that were part of the preliminary dcvcloprocnt
plan which have not been completed. A landscape and irrigation plan will need to be designed,
accepted by the City, and constructed for the area bordering f Iighway 99. A landscaping and
irrigation plan will need to be designed and accepted for the area bordering Griffin Creek. The plan
will also need to show a "tot lot" and adult recreation areas.
The Public Works Department submitted a staff reporC which dealt with other unresolved issues.
These include a permaucnC barrier 1brNnncyand Mary's Way. A emergency access gate for Nancy's
Wayand a latched walkinggate forNaucy's Waywill need to be submitted and accepted by the City.
A striping plan will also need to be submitted showing die no parking areas of the development.
Staffreconuneuded that 11 of these be completed prior to the Final Plat be signed by City Staff.
The applicant, E3rad Miller, stated that all of the homes in Phase 1 are built above the t 00-year flood
plain. They have recently hired a landscape company to do the design for both landscaping plans.
He would like to work with Use City to comeup with acceptable striping plan and permanent barrier
for Nancy and Mary's Way.
Commissioner LeGros made a motion to adopt Resolution 549 approving the final
development plan, based on findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and
subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in Resolution 433 and in the
Planning and Public Works Staff Reports. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLL
CALL: The motion passed unanimously.
B. A Public meeting to review an application for a fence variance at 653 Meadotvbrook
Drive. The applicant is requesting if portions of proposed fence can be constructed at
a height of six feet in a side yard setback where the code allows a maximum height of
42 inches. The subject property is located in the R-1-8, Residential Single Family
zoning district on Map 37 2~V O1BC, Tax Lot 9300.
Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The
applicants are requesting a fence variance for a side yard fence on a coiner lot. The fence would go
out to the property line at a height of six feet. Several neighbors have signed a petition in favor of
the placement of the fence. In order for a fence variance to be approved the Planning Commission
must find the creation of an unnecessary hardship or six other criteria.
The applicant, Dan and Kay Ben'yman, stated that this would have an undo hardship because it
wouldn't allow for proper screening of the pool and would ]unit the area of useable property. They
also feel that building a three and one-half feet high fence then a four feet fence would not allow for
screening of the pool and not to the protection that they would like. They were also not told by the
developer of the restrictions on the corner lot.
Matt Samitore, told the applicants and commission of the correct right-of--way ou the lot and that the
fence would need Yo be setback three Pcct from (he back of the sidewalk. 'Chc pool would also have
to be setback a minimum of hventy feet ti~om the property Iinc on the side yard.
Commissioner Fish made a motion to adopt Resolution X50 approving the fence variance based
on the fiudinbs of fact contained in fhe record and subject Yo the recommended conditimu of
appeoval. Commissioner Riggs seconded the motion. ROLI, CALL: "hhe motion passed
Ill1a111 n10USI)'.
VII. ~[ISCELLANEOUS
There were no miscellaneous items.
VIIL ADJOURNMENT
Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Fish seconded
the motion. ROLL CAALL: Nfotion passed unanimously. MccPing was adjourned at 8:45
P.iVt.
PL~~~NNING DEPARTI4IsN'p STAFF RIs`POR'C
HEARING DATE Jaly 2, 2002
TO: Central Point Planning Commission
FROM: Matt Samitore, Community Planner
SUBJECT: Preliminary Development Plan- Birchwood Village P.U.D
Applicant/
Owner: Steven and Debbie Childs
484 Beall Lane
Central Point, OR 97502
Ades, nt: Paul Grout
P.O. Box 8210
Medford, OR 975041
Summary:
The applicant has submitted a preliminary development plan for a Residential Planned Unit
Development (PUD) consisting of 9 single family lots. These will be stick built homes that
resemble the cluster developments in the Transit Oriented Development zones. Covenant, Codes
and Restrictions (CC&R's) will govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the
common open space and landscaping within the PUD. The PUD is being pursued because it
allows the applicants more development flexibility with lot area, driveways, and an existing
house. The applicant is trying to build to the R-2 zoning density, work with a deep dimensional
lot, and introduce single family housing variety.
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. (Exhibits B).
Applicable Law:
CPMC 16.10.010 et seq.- Tentative Plans
CPMC 17.68.010 et seq.- Planned Unit Development
CPMC 17.24.010 et seq.- R-2, Residential Two Family District
CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations
CPMC 17.64.010 et seq.- Off Street Parking
Dl$cn$slon:
The applicant was granted an Administrative Variance in order to proceed with this PUD (Sec
Attachment B). Usually, PUD's must be at least an acre in size. With a 10% Administrative
Variance this allowed the .90 acre parcel to be processed as a PUD. The applicant considered
using the Conditional Use Application which allows for a cluster home development, but it does
not allow for either the density or the housing the applicant and the City m~c seeking. The
applicant, Paul Grout, is proposing the development of eight new single family homes in the R-2,
Two-Family Zoning district. Currently, one single family home is located on the lot The overall
density of this PUD is 9 mlits an acre which is Icss than the 12 units per acre allowed in the R-2
zone.
The homes in this plan will consist of zero lot line attached and detached homes. Lots 1, 2, 3,
and 8 would have a front yard setback of two feet, with a private driveway of 30' to 35' which
will allow for other parking and vehicular fuming. Lots 7 and 8 would have a setback of five feet
on the Beall Side, instead of the typical 10' setback.
The property to the North and West of the site is currently zoned R-2. Property to the east and
South (Medford) is zoned and R-1-6. Most of the area is developed as single family homes.
There are culrently no improvements on the Circle Wood Drive or Beall Lane frontages of this
property. The public works department is requesting ten feet ofright-of--way along Beall Lane
for the future development. Sidewa]ks and street trees will need to be added to the perimeter of
the development along the street frontage.
The applicant intends to construct one main driveway into the development which will access off
of Circle Wood Drive. Public utilities will be contained within the road and the easements
identified on the tentative plan. Pre-design meetings should be held with Avista Utilities, Fire
District No. 3 and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to work out issues related to
easements and the placement of fire hydrants and pipelines.
The applicants are proposing to satisfy on-site parking requirements by providing two covered
spaces per lot. One attached garage for each unit, as well as one carport. If acceptable, this
arrangement would satisfy the requirements specified in Section 17.64.040. Landscaping has
been shown on the site plan. Irrigation for the trees will be addressed by the individual home
owners. The landscaping and tree's in the common area will be maintained by the tenants of the
existing home.
Area residents have submitted a letter in opposition of the Planned Unit Development. The
residents are opposed to the higher density development near their existing single family homes.
They have also questioned the reasoning for the PUD and the added traffic to the intersection of
Beall and Circle Wood. The R-2 zoning was adopted by the City in 1983. The R-2 zone
typically allows duplex development.
J .~
Public II'orks Staff Report
The Public Works Department has submitted a staff report actdressing the PUD. A ten feet
dedication ofright-of--way along Beall Lanc is required for further expansion of Beall Lanc. L,ot
#7 proposed building bad is within the sight vision triangle, it will have to be moved. Lot 6 and
7 will need to have a shared driveway because of its location to the intersection of Beall and
Circle Wood does not meet Public Works standards. If a signal is installed at the intersection of
Beall and Circle Wood the developer would be responsible for a portion of the cost. This would
be calculated by the Public Works Department as part of an area of mutual benefit. There are no
cun-ent plans to place a signal at this intersection.
Findings of Fact 8i Conclusions of Law
Size of PUD site
A PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres or larger, except that a PUD may be 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 planned unit development;
^ The sit is located at the entrance to a new residential neighborhood. Property
improvements will be consistent with other new development. The subject lot is
unusually deep which presents some development difficulties.
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 applicant is trying to work around an existing house that has traditional
architectural characters and features.
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;
^ This is located within an area zoned as R-2, in which many of the family homes have
been developed at lower densities. The nearest similar R-2 development is to the
West on Benjamin Court and then on Green tree Way.
v~~
D. The property is of irregular shape, with limited access, or has unusual
dimensions or characteristics which would make conventional development unreasonably
difficult and expensive
® The Corner lot has limited access because of the designation of Beall Lane as
Collector Street. Trying to develop this lot in a typical fashion would be difficult
because of that designation and its depth. The PUD will allow for a higher density
zoning within the R-2 dish•ict and allow for a cluster concept which is a Conditional
Use in the R-2 zoning district. 'The administrative Variance allows fa• the size of the
PUD to be smaller than the typical 1 acre. This is a reasonable "in-fill" proposal.
Criteria to Grarrt or 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 single family chvellings in
the context of attached and detached homes similar to others in the community. The
housing types will be similar in narin•e to the larger single family hmnes built in the
area and owner occupied. The overall housing density is less than the maximum in
the R-2 zoning district.
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 Horsing Goals to the degree it
ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing
offered and promotes higher density zoning. Birchwood Village promotes clustered
housing and other designs that will potentially minimize the need to expand the
urban growth boundary by encouraging a higher density than what is typically been
developed in Central Point. Zoning code objectives can be met if recommended
planning and public works conditions are satisfied.
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 R-2 zoning. The finished
homes will be similar in nature to the Single Family homes in the district, but will
have smaller lots associated with the houses. The self-contained nahu•e of the
development will have little impact upon the livability of surrounding
neighborhoods and are actually expected to make it more attractive. Property
v .,
management and covenants will govern the maintenance acid overall appearance of
the PUD.
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 couil>lete
said consh~uction with a reasonable time as determined by the Commission;
® Neither an economic feasibility report nor market analysis has been pcrformect to
staffs knowledge. However, smaller single family houses are iu demand elsewhere
in the City at Central Point East and Twin Creeks. r\ development schedule has
been submitted indicating that the applicants intend to complete construction within
a reasonable amount of time.
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;
^ There are five driveways proposed for Birchwood Village off of Circlewood Drive.
One of the driveways will serve as the main driveway for the development, which
will have five homes that use it for ingress and egress. There will be three other
driveways that will access one car garages off of them. One of those driveways, Lot
#7 will need to have a combined driveway with Lot #6 in order to meet the Public
Works Standards. The external and internal circulation will not adversely effect
neighboring properties.
F. The co~mnercial 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 in Birchfieid Village.
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 in Birchfieid Village.
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 an open space area and the planting of
street trees. The current location of significant landscaping is not depicted on the
plan.
The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area;
v...;
® The Birchwood Village PUD is compatible with the surrounding area to the extent
that it maintains a similar architechsal style of the homes across Circle Wood Drive
(refer to building elevations). The homes developed to the cast of the PUD are
within the R-1-6 Single Family Zoning District. These homes arc on larger lots and
are zoned for lower density. The PUD will ^ot have the smnc lot size as other homes
in the area.
The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to oUrer perntittcd
uses for the land;
® The development will result in a more efficient use of public services. It is also is a
good use of the R-2 zoning district which wilt help delay the expansion of the [Jrban
Growth Boandaty.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary
development plan for Birchwood Village Planned Unit Development.
1. Adopt Resolution No., approving the PUD Preliminary Development plan subject to the
recommended conditions of approval (Attachment ); or
2. Deny the proposed Preliminary Plan; or
3. Continue the review of the Preliminary Development Plan at the discretion of the
Commission.
Exhibits:
A. Application and Exhibits by the applicant
B. Public Works Staff Report
C. Administrative Variance Application
D. Correspondence
E. Planning Department Conditions
G:\Plannin~\02026.wpd
J .. ..
o~
U
City of'Centj~crl Por.'nt
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
'fam Ilunq>hrcy, AICP
I'lannin~ Director
I<en Gersehler
ConunanitV Planner
119a1t Snmitore
Connuwiity Planner
Dave Arkens
Planning Technician
Notice of Meeting
Date of Notice: June 11, 2002
Meeting Date:
Time:
Place:
NATUKE OF MEETING
July 2, 2002
7:00 p.m. (Approximate)
Central Point City Hall
155 South Second Street
Central Point, Oregon
Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application
for a Planned Unit Development on a parcel ofproperiylocated near the intersection of Circlcwood Drive
and Beal] Lane. The subject parcel islocated in a R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District cn Jackson
County Assessment Plat 372W 12CC, Tax Lot 6300.
The Centra] PointPlanning Commission will initiallyreview the tentativeplan forthe Planned Unit
Development to detennineifthcproposedsubdivisionofthcexisting.90acretotallotsizenreetsthe
requirements oflaw. Ifapproved, the subdivision would create aesidential development that would have
10 parcels.
CRITERIA FOR DECISION
The requirements forPlanncd IJlllt Develolxnents are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 ofthe Central Point
Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations and ConshuctionPlans. The proposed plan is also
reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Anypcrsoninterested in commenting on the abovementioned land use decision maysubmitwritten
comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, July 2, 2002.
2. Written commentsmaybesentinadvanceofthemeetingtoCentralPointCityHal1,155South
Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502.
~^?
.~ ., .. ~
Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the
expirationofthecommcntperiodnotcdabove. Any testimony andwrittcnconuucntsaboutthc
decisions described about will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to
the Planning Commission.
4. CopiesofallevidencerelieduponbytheapplicantareavailableforpublicreviewatCityIIal1, 155
South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same arc available at I S cents per
page.
5. Foradditionalinfomlation,thepublicmaycontactthcPlauningDeparhuentat(541)664-3321 ext.
231.
SUMMARY OF PROCFDURI;
At the meeting, the Planning Conunission will review the appl ications, technical staffreports, he<v~ testimony
from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Anytestimonyor
written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the
P]anningComtnissionmayapproveordenythetentativeplanforthePlannedUnitDevelopment. City
regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be iufonned about all Planning Commission
decisions.
155 South Second Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ (541) 664-3321 ~ Fax: (5411 664-6354
~~~
Exhibit "~"
--- 171.f34'
1 - '
5
o I I
I LOT 1 to
r>
N I 1
I.~ LOT -1 I
N 2357
.
~ 1
I
'
.i :::
1848 y
; i
n i ,
I I I I ".
r----60_------I
-----------
I 4 r
~
I I
i
_
°j o
" Lp LOT 2 ~
I `" ~.. - n I d. LOT J y
"' I o
NI
N 173 7 N 2310 ...
\. I I I
L_____46 -_~_J i I
1. 46' J
59-_-___
l _. ;
I
I I ~ ~ ,I
~
e``
~ ~ F
k',-i
o
n IN LOT 3
i 7 788 '~I' ~
I
~4
oo Q~ I
I
I I
L___-^46____-J _~ .
1
1 58
95 29 CATCH
^/6ASIN" `_
1 _
~
' N ~
n
1
h / ~
I M
LOT 9
6782 oQ e
ti
' ~
~
_..
' LOT 10
i 13,125
, ~ I b
M
- 7s' II
~
N
r-----46-----~ ~ ny
o i I ~ kj
I~ I
~
~ LOT 6 I
M
- r7
~
i
2432 I ~ U
VERED .._ _. / L_~, ___~--_-J.
..
CO
ARKING i ~ ...
'
P
~-----~------I 76
-- -------- ::'
I 46 I r
~
I 1
N I. { O
~
N I. I
~° IN LOT 7 I
M
.
LOT 8 i ~ ! 2736 I
I 227a
I
I I ,
I FH :Lv_-________J
~ L-____46~__-_J :.
I
Ste" ...
-' S8' .... _.
38' ~~~ -. 76' 5..,,
1
I ,
1
0
0 i
~
170.90 '
STREET DEDICATION _.
~~
LL'A L
L LA 1~TL'
_ _
~~.
A
' J>1WI100-100
_ ~ ~
J®~'n
,ic3e3
MAPPINp & []2910N
>' ~~ \~
'-=~'~EPlifkAL Fp0N7 _jF c~~
4 ~..~_~ F_a1
I 3lTN1iC 1909
~ ~,. ~:~
I ~ rte((( III.„~~~ ~ 7 ~~ ~~ I ~~
~~ I ':\
OODRIDCE ~ ~z ~ pROJEC'P I ~I ~"~
!\ \ I SITE 1 it r~~N ~~
1
DRIVE ~\~I~ I~ ?!~ ~ °*~JC ~Ilm ~~~ ~~~
'~~
-----
--,
:
-
~
\
N DFWI?CC-9000 Y",
~I I -O~
/ j ~~
~1
~;
~
a I
`
O
! I
I
~ _. _. _.. .. _.
_..__.. ..-__..
~I
~` Y
~ DTWIICC-9100 n
I
~/
.4 (a~'
~i
'~ 1
1
30A LE:1'S 40`
L
~ :C?DLRPPNIC CDMROi PROVIDED BY:
_ „
'- ~~` ' <flv OF MEOFORD
"' - PJ6lIC 1vORUS OEPAHiMENi
n ~1 T
1J.L',ALL y~
LA~T CNC NEfftINO AND DEVELOPUEhi DIV150N
dlt 1:ESi EILHIH SiftEEi
- _ - -
.(i f MEDFORD, OREGON 9)501
I
__._
?
--
` 'ACFIZONAL DAIUp.; NAD 83/91
l VfR9CK DAIDFL FLVIi 29
PROJECIIDrv
D1WILCC-D00 LcuEERi COh'CAL. OREGON SOUtH ZONC
ATWITCC-1600
JITWITCC-160! I
I ~~ ~ T
1
',t JI e
~~, n~ r ~~~„~ . III
_~
1 II _
Legend
V ic~nity
Map
\~\ h
__ ~` N:L.S.
T~
2Cn'ING. R-Z (HESIDENiIAt Lv0-FANi.Y) >
sCHOpt D19i: q'Sa9C ~ 1
FIRE JISI: e3 ', 1
ACRE$ 101Fi: 0.50 4c i/-
-vl- FPPROx. LOEFnOk OF Exl$iirvG v1atER LINE
-SS- FPPROx. LOEA:ION OE Ex15t1NL SWUaRV SEfiER Lih£ I
-SD- APPROx, LOGiiION CE ESIStING SiCRM DFN41
-o.- pyERnf>O POWER LINES '
-~~..~ PROPGSED 6' RICH CEDM FENCE
r i PFOPOSED EU Lu1NC ENVELOPE ,
L__J
0 SIREEI LGHi '
K* POWfH PCLE
~h fIRE HYDRM-
xx YIFIER METER
~ StORM OF n DROP MLEi
NDif FI Gf 9 ¢ GVV,¢ 1 1 o,¢V.. 0~0
1 0 'ons pp ole.
PRO PO SED S1T E PLAN
_. _ _,
e E b IlT Cn ryiOtl 9 ,
Foc -_ ..._.. ......
2AUu GROUT 1
' 2599HU\TN G:O\ LV. DATE"4AY 1D, ZDD2
<'Av...OF2 '
BIRCH FIELD VILLAGE
TENTATIVEPJJD.PLAN
LOCATED M.
SW 1/40F THE SW 1/90£SECTIDN I2,TOi~IJ Sr.1P 39 SOUTH ,RAN GE2W EST,
W SLLAt4ET TEM ERIDiAH ,CTTY OPC F.N TRAL PO L\T,.T~CKSON COUN TY,O REGCN
3] 2W 12CC -^. L 6300
_o_ _ __ _
N 2~1i~~,F
I
NING
MSTR. BDRM $
N
19x1018 LIVING
71x16tH
~
Z
: ° !(iTCHEN
00
N ~
~
J~ m
BEDRM. BEDRM.
9/3x11,'8I~ I I GARAGE PORCH
s,~x1D
PLAN N0. D-319 (9920
MAIN FLOOR d90 SQ. FT.
UPPER FLOOR 690 SO.PT.
TOTAL LIVABLE 1780 SO. FT.
GARAGE 230 SQ. FT.
---
PLAN IS SNOWN AS SIt1GLE UNIT#9920
ALSO CONicS AS DUPLEX PLAN #D399
CALL IF YOU NEED (vmRE UNITS
Brainier ~ associates, inc. designers A.I.B.D.
PH(7NE: {b03}2463022 1304S1N8ERTHABLVD.PORTLANDOREGON 97219
http://www.bruinier.com/9920d319 jpg
J _
5/13!02
~*2
__
---
t , ~ €",:
~'+ LOT 1
r-r
i`~ , ~ any
~_____`P'_____i
~, r____________ ~'+
~ C.,
~' LOT 2
~ in
i
LOT h
+ i
iR ~-
1
I i i
i i o;v
, ~_________.._1.-.
~ ~_~ N
~ t.
~~
LOT 5 F
~
~
„
~ 1 I U~~ ..' I I Oi'' r`l .rr.. ... ,..
_ _a8 ~ ~l
l l ~, _ 5S~ _ y~
I \\ss- w
I ~ ~n ii v . ?1R ~i
a_ ________i ~
~+ I nee ~°
~ I ' > m
~:
I ~.
.• .\t ~ \ Iw (~
'ti_~' ~ I .. Is ...... .__._.. ..._ ............ .
oN~ ~ !S
LOT 9 / ~ ~~
/ ~~/ `~~------^-LOT 10 ~i
O I ~ ' ~ I as^ ~ "e
I
r I I II i^ LOT 6 i s~ a [~ 'i
~ I p ~~ ~
rn?, j- ~ - --- - ~~ ~ I
°Ga a'wc i.." i ~~
i„ LOT 8 ttt ...T=`\ in LOT 7
I
scat n ~ ~ ~ ~
i r i ~ L i a~n
rwdk -- '- ~s'
i
°+
I
51P:Ci Crp~iGN
_ BED %L I,~ ItIE _ ~;
BIRCHFIELD VILLAGE
k
~, TEN TATIVEPSJ D.PLAN
~®~~ ~.. LocATe~ li
S`81f409 TNCSRt 1(SO.S:ITDV 12,TOLi NSiP 39 SOUTH,°.A'r uE 2'vi ES°,
~~~~~~ C:II.LAM ETTEM ER;il~i1,CiY0e'C'eS TRAL ?0.1i'Y,e'iCKSCil COVit .TY,03t3G0`:
i ¢a
MAAnINra R Ov,e1nN ]] 2": ?2CC -^: L'u300
wn.< uvmc
ero,ea nm. m~n ~ ~ o~~az Qo va
`l
~r ~
~s fimr ;:. gym'?
~~ i r r
I
'_ J IN14 _ Iii1hJ/ R 'a.
_ f4:
~ J
~ ~.
r vin j e•n~.
}
_~. u =_a FLOOa ~.
Mit~l FLOOR I
Nr,^.
D~1RG
g5T1 bRq dd
1? i lr+txt
uztun
i 1 ~3 14i1l:xFN
i.l' ~~
~/MGE ~~~
o~~rs~. ~.~~an"'
~1
_,.__r
!~ERFtOORbE 6ab5~.FL
nb
___
PROPOSED STR:7CTIIRES
__ y is
a s?.oLr. _,2 C
259 ....: '1...0\..\.
.. '.,p FO x'J. og.9C59i ... _ _.
?AG=2092
6uro1 fcld 6r(laye PCD Ierttatine Plmi
PlPU Slaff Report
rdv z°~ zooz
Pnge 1
CITY OF CENTRAL POINT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
STAFF REPORT
For
BIRCHFIELD V[LLAGE P.U.D
PW# 02026
Date:
Applicant:
Project:
Location:
Legal:
Zoning:
Area:
Units:
Plans:
Report By:
Purpose
Exhibit "B"
July 2nd, 2002
Paul Grout 2599 Huntington LN. Medford, OR 97504
Birchfield Village P.U.D.
Circlewood Drive, East of Beall Lane, Central Point, Oregon
37 2W 12CC - TL 6300
R-2
.90378 Acres
10 Lots + Covered Parking 8t Open Space
Birchfield Village Tentative P.U.D. Plan (John Sieber Mapping 8t Design)
Public Works Department
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 industrial facility. Gather
information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development.
Special Requirements
t . 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 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: A 10-foot section of Right-of-Way along the southern
property line shall be dedicated for the widening of Beall Lane. A Landscape Plan/Buffer
shall be constructed and maintained at the developer's expense until such a time the Beall
J r ~
Ilircl feld I%illage PUD Teritaln~e P/nn
P IVD .Smjf~Xeport
Juh~Y"' 2002
Pnge 2
Lane street section is widened.
3. Landscape Plan/Buffer: A suitable landscape plan for the required landscape buffer
along Beall Lane shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval.
Once approved, the landscape plan shall be implemented and maintained) by the
Developer at the Developer's expense. At a minimum, the landscape plan shall include
provision for grass and street trees. The trees shall be selected from the City's draft street
tree list, as approved by City's Planning Commission and City Planning Department and
PWD staff. The street trees selected shall be compatible with the overhead power lines in
this area and shall be of a minimum 1-1 /2 inch caliper size. The landscape buffer shall be
designed with an automated irrigation system that is operated utilizing AC power for the
system's controls.
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. Lot # 7: The southeast corner of Birchfield Village contains Lot # 7 which initiates
several special circumstances. First, Lot # 7 seven contains a sight vision triangle which
extends 55-feet West from the southeast property corner 8t 25-feet North of the
southeast property corner. No construction will be permitted to occur within the
boundaries of the sight-vision-triangle. The second issue involving Lot# 7 pertains to the
driveway approach. All driveway approaches will be constructed to conform to City of
Central Point construction standards. Furthermore, due to restrictions regarding the
position of a driveway approach in location to a property line 8i intersection, the Public
Works Department would recommend a combination driveway approach for Lots # 6817.
6. Signalization: Should the future determination be made mandating signalization of the
intersection of Beall Lane and Circlewood Drive, the developer would be responsible for a
portion of the cost based on a mutual area of benefit.
J .i
/3n~chfield i'illage PUD Taitatine Plan
P{PD S[gff Report
September lQ 1998
Yage 3
GENERAL
1. 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 (DEQ),
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
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.
As-built 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 AutoCADr compatible
drawing electronic file 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. 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.
5. 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.
~~~
l3irchfield Pillage PL/D Tentative Plan
PM'D StaJJReport
September 10, 7998
Page ~
b. 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 should be
required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CCBiRs 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.
7. 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.
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 ODOT regarding Highway 99 improvements (as
applicable).
8. 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.
9. Overhead power lines. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US
West, and TCI Cable, 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.
10. 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.
1 1. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a
J .i ~ ~ 4[
I3i~~drfield Pillage PUD Ten/mire Pine
P I~PD S7aJf Repor!
Septe~~rher 10, /994
Page 5
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
1. Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Street 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.
2. The Developer's engineer shall, at the cost of the Developer, evaluate the strength of the
native soils and determine the driveway/street 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
1. 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 surface water flow, and any areas deemed by the City that wilt need to
connect-into the proposed development's SD System.
3. Roof drains and under drains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines,
and shall drain to the street.
4. 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.
5. 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.
J r
~. ~'
73irclfeld 1'i!lage PUD Tentative Plrrrr
P I frD S[a, jJ-Report
,September IQ 1998
Page ,'
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.
Rights of Ways/Easements
l . 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.
~R
~~e A4
APPLICATION FOR ZONING VARIANCE
CITP OF CENTPoil POINT Pfil A'NINC DBPdRT6~fENT '
Exhibit "C"
nn2~n srAnmrn
ron orncr; usn o~ Lr
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Name: Pact Grou[
Address: P. o. Box szro
City: Medford State: OR Zip Code: 97501
Telephone: Business: sai-GOi~GOOO Residence:
2. AGENT INFORMATION
Name:
Address:
City: State: Zip Code:
Telephone: Business: Residence:
3. OWNER OF RECORD (Attach Separate Sheet If More Tllan One)
Name: Steven and Debbie Childs
Address: 484 Beall Lane
City: central Point State: OR Zip Code: 97502
Telephone: Business: 77G-a9a8 Residence: Go7-3300
4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Township: 39 Range: 2W Section: l2CC Tax Lot(s): G30o
Address: 484 Beall Lane
Zoning District: R-2
Total Acreage: 0.90 Acn;
General Description of Variance:
A request of a ten percent administrative variance for nre minium size of a PUD from one acre to point
nine (0.90) of an acre.
5. REQUIRED SUBMITTALS
_ ....
® rs pp rcatton Form. ------__._..._,,._
® Application Fee (See Curren[ Fee Schedule).
® Site Plan and Elevations Drawn to Scale (1 0 sets).
® One Copy of a Reduced Site Plan & Elevations (8 1/2" x 11 ").
® Written authority from Property Owner iFAgent in application process.
® Findings (Addressing Criteria in Section 15.20.080 of the Central Point Municipal
Code)
® Legal Description of the Property.
® Letter of Project Description.
6. I HEREBY STATE THAT THE FACTS RELATED UV THE ABOVE
APPLICATION AND THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED
HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST Or MY
KNOWLEDGE.
I certify that I am the: ^ Property Owner or ®Authorized Agent of the Owner of the
proposed project site.
Signature ~I-'W-{' i-c~J Date 5/13/02
If any wetlands exist on the site, it is the applicant's responsibility to apply for a pemrit to Division of
FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT USE ONLY
Application Accepted as Complete on:
720th day of Land Use of Limited Land Use Decision:
Land Use Case File Number:
Wetlands Check:
UPON FORMALLPACCEPTlNG POUR APPLlCATlON, THE PLANMNG DEPARTMENT IVILLMAIL A COPY OP T}!IS FOREf
TO YOU.
Actised 09 Avxust 2001
~~
5/13/02
To: Matt Samitore, Community Planner
From: Paul Grout, PUD/Subdivision Applicant
Subject: PUD Minor Variance
Matt per our conversation, the following is a minor PUD variance request for
review by the Central Point planning department.
A request for a ten percent administrative variance for the minimum size of a
PUD from one acre to point nine (0.90) of an acre is requested on the basis of
the application. The evidence submitted meets all of the following circumstances:
A. That the variance will provide added advantages to the
neighborhood or the city, such as beautification or safety.
See Exhibit A: The attached plat demonstrates the existing house location
and parcel dimension creates adverse circumstances for development of a
functional and esthetic development. A condition exists where a typical
subdivision application would restrict development to a six lot subdivision v~ith
two flag lots having restrictive fire access, three lots being irregularly shaped,
and one lot with the existing 2600 sq' six bedroom, two bath 1930's vintage
home having no Circlewood Drive curb appeal. Additionally, six of the homes
would have drive ways backing out onto Circlewood Drive which increases
the likelihood of traffic accidents.
See Exhibit 6: The suhject development with the requested variance has
nine lots; eight of which consist of small lot detached homes and one of which
contains the existing home. All nine parcels are clustered around a courtyard,
providing for open space landscaping of the courtyard and the existing home
open to Circlewood Drive. Central Point Municipal Code 17.24.010 states
"the purpose of the R-2 zoning district is to encourage a suitable environment
for family life...". The proposed development minimizes a {ot that tends itself
to a closed in and confused site plan and conversely maximizes the
properties potential for open space, beauty, the viewing of surrounding
mountains, and pleasing open view of trees and flowers centered around a
courtyard.
B. That the variance wiN not have any significant adverse impacts upon
the neighborhood.
See Exhibits A and B: The variance permits no adverse impacts, conversely it
promotes the properties highest and best uses through design and
architecture; and consequently a positive impact on the surrounding
neighborhood.
C. That the circumstances affect the property that generally do not
apply to other property in the same zoning district.
See Exhibit B: The attached plat map demonstrates the subject development
is a corner lot with an irregular shaped 2600 sq' 1930's home sitting near
center of the property. The need to maintain this unique home's visual
presence to Circlewood Drive and the inability to create lots or a road that
allows for a functional or esthetic design are unique to this property .
D. That the conditions for which the variance is requested were not self-
imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the
applicant's agents, employees or family members.
See Exhibit C: The attached preliminary title report reflects that Paul Grout is
not the owner nor has his agents, employees or family member ever had an
interest or land planning action concerning this property.
Should you have any further questions or requirements, I can be reached at
601-6000.
Respectfully submitted this 13~" day of May 2002,
~/ g"""~1 ~'~
Paul Grout
Attachments
Exhibit A: Platt Map w/o Variance.
Exhibit B: Platt Map with Variance
Exhibit C: Title Report of Subject Property
C i' r.,
__ ._. _ f71.84~ )~'~~ 1. '
'1
LOT 1 ti
31JB
!~ ~ LOT 3 - .__
8638
i
~)
q
1 A ::
f o
~:
q
o
LOT 4
11.4]5
O
L~
5
5 !
-..,
r
7 '"
Y
I
€8
kJ
M ~ b
r
~ -
- LOT 6
fv}') 3157
l~
LOT 7 -" ;
1
1 4898
i
~
_
li
1
11 t _i
0 _ r -. ,
' -~ - -- ~ - 170.40 -
_ _^_-_
STREET DEDICAl1ON
BEALL LANE
_
_ _ -r
2
rl
,~; ~I r C
Reat Property Tax Account No.: 1 48597 4 372W 12CC 6300
Situs Address as disclosed by Jackson County Tax Roll:
484 Beall Lane, Central Point, OR 97502
VESTED IN:
Steven R. Childs and Debbie M. Childs, as tenants by the entirety
Dated as of March 12, 2002 at 8:00 a.m.
Subject to the Standard Exceptions, if any, the printed Exclusions and the Conditions and
Stipulations of the policy as well as the following Special Exceptions:
1. Taxes for the fiscal year
Total amount:
Total unpaid balance:
Account No.:
Millage Code:
2001-2002,
$'1,948.30
$649.43, plus interest
1 48597 4 372W12CC 6300
49-49
2. Regulations, including levies, assessments, water and irrigation rights and easements for
ditches and canals of Rogue River Valley Irrigation District.
3. Regulations, including levies, liens, assessments, rights of way and easements of
Midway Water District.
4. The rights of the public in and to that portion of the premises herein described lying
within the limits of public roads, streets and highways.
5. An Easement created by instrument, including the terms and provisions thereof,
In favor of: Pacific Power and Light Company
For: Public Utilities
Volume: 544 Page: 226
in Jackson County, Oregon.
Page.2
RepoA No. 03-53823
Serving Oregon for Over 35 Years
Exhibit
June 26, 2002
Central Point Planning Commission
Central Point City Hall
ISS Souttt Second Street
Central Point, OR 97502
ATTN: Members of the Planning Commission
RE: Proposed Birchfield Village P.U.D. Plan
CITY OF ^ENTftAI_ PUh.";
~ui~t ~ zooz
PLANNING C7 CiUILDhVG
Puauc wo~I<s uePr. ^
«D»
We the undersigned property owners do hereby want to submit continent for your consideration about this
proposed development.
In the Central Point Bast development where for instance one street is totally dedicated to zero lot or very
small lot homes this type of development fits in. However, in the new Circlewood Drive subdivision a
P.U.D, would not be consistent with the type of construction that is already present.
The Ciry Code, under Chapter 17.68, section 17.68.020 which deals with the size of the plamted unit
development site states in # C. that the property is adjacent to or in the immediate vicinity of a planned trait
development of similar design as that proposed and that the developments would complement each other
without significant adverse impact on surrounding areas. We do not feel that this would in any way
complement that which already exists.
Section 17.680.020 also stated that a PUD shall be on a tract of land five acres or larger except that a PUD
MAY be on a tract of land of more than one acre, etc. This property that is proposed to turn into this huge
number of lots is less than one acre in size.
We also have serious questions about the added traffic congestion close to the existing intersection of
Circlewood and Beall The added congestion on this intersection caused by such a large number of
vehicles would be substantial. Section 17.680.020 #B. talks about these concerns as tvcll.
Section 17.68.040, # I states, "The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area". Please look at the
developed lots on Circlewood Drive, those on Woodridge Dr, and those across the street on Beall Lane.
Look also to the lots that border this proposed development o^ the west, and you will see larger ]ots with
single family homes. Does this proposed type of development qualify as being of similar design or as
being contpa(ible with the surzonnding area? Quite the contrary.
We do realize the need for additional housing in the greater Central Point area. But, we ask the
Conmtission to show caption when considering such divergence from a neighborhood plan already in
effect.
Sincerely submitted by property owners
Jan ~ Brv Pipping 157 Woodridge Dr. 665-2495
Mel & Caro] Coffin 508 Beall Ln
S20 Beall Ln 664-7459
Don R Carol Malloy 452I3ca11 Ln 664-3274
Nonua Prillintan 166 Woodridge Dr. 6GS-3793
Daren & Heidi McKendree 158 Woodridge Dr 665-3682
Jerr}~ & Daua Anthous ISO \Voodridgc Dr 664-5130
DondtKathyBilbeny ISI Woodridge Dr 664-5904
Madeline Preslac 1360 Circlewood Dr 665-2886
Chad Hopkins 1380 Circlewood Dr 665-7036
James Williams 1345 Circlewood Dr. 665-2691
David & Cassie Burney 1338 Circlewood Dr. 665-3356
Sharon R Cecil Brummet t 1278 Circlewood Dr. 665-2195
Jon Toreson 1100 Circlewood Ct. 665-2695
Jason Prins 1106 Circlewood Ct. 66S-0859
William Courtney 1250 Circlewood Dr. 664-3243
~ a
~'
Exhibit "E"
RECONIM1iND1;D PLANNING DEPAR'CiA~IGNT CONDI'T'IONS OF APPROVAL
A final development plan, containing in fiual form the information required in the
preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six months of approval or by
January 4, 2002. 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 Uniforn Fire Code and Structural Specialty
Code.
The applicant shall submit final puking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the City
for approval as pvt of the final development plan. A suitable landscape ar~d irrigation
plan shall show the types of tree's, shrubs, and growid cover that will be planted and the
irrigation for the common space.
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.
5. The applicant shall schedule and attend pre-design meetings with Avista Utilities, Fire
District No. 3 and the Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority to more specifically identify
utility easements and the placement of fire hydrants and pipelines and other utilities.
6. A suitable landscape and irrigation plan needs to be submitted showing the types of tree's
that will be planted and the irrigation for the common space.
G\Pl ann ing\02026. wpd