Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - June 18, 2002c~~~ o~j~ cr~NF~~z~.A~~ ~>o~NT PLANNING COMi~'II~SION AGENDA ,J~rne I.B, 2042 --'1:00 r~.~t~. ~ ~ fl Next Plaztnit~g Cozxzn~issian 12esolution Na. 549 I. l~'SEIJTING CALKED `~'C) (JRDEI2. liL Iz.OLL CALL Chuck Piland -Candy Fish, Dan Faster, Jahn LeGros, Paul Luz~tc, Rick ferry and Wayne Riggs IIL CC}I2I2ESPONDEIYCE ~V. I~JT i~J1TE~ A. Review and approval of June 4, 2.002, Planning Cozzunissiaz~ Ivlinutes V. PUBLIC APP`EARANCI~.~ VL I3USINES~ Page 1 - 32 A. Review of the Final Development Plan for Phase Il (2~ lots} of the Miller Estates Planned Unit Development. The subject property is located on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 03B 501. 33 - 44 I3. Continued public meeting to review an application for a fence variance at 653 Meada~vbrook Drive. The applicant is requesting if portions of proposed fence can be canstz~zcted at a height of six feet in a side yard setback ~.vhere the code aIlocvs a maximum height of 42 inches, Tl3e subject property is located inthe R-1-8, Residential dingle Family zoning district on May 37 2W 01130, Tax Lot 9300. VII. MI~CELLANE4U5 V~JI. AD~4T.lRNMENT pity of Central ~'o~nt Manning Coz~.~~~~.isslo~~ Jzxz~~ 4, 2fl02 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT '7:00 I'.M. II. ROLL CALL: Chairman Chuck Piland, Rick Perry, Ca~tdy Fisli, John LcGros, Don Foster anti Wayne Riggs were present. Patel Lunte was absent. Also in aftendance were Ton~z Htzn~phrey, Pla~zning Director, Ken Gcrschler, Con~n~unity Planner; Matt 5aznitore, Coz~tzt~ut~ity Planner, and Dave Arkens, Planning Technician. III. CORRESPONDENCE There were three pieces of correspondezace for ifem A: az~ aznendznent fia the Public Works StaffReport from Bob Pierce, Public Works Director; a letter frozrz Denise Marshall of~395 Tulane Avenue; and a letter from Herb Farber of Farber Surveying. IV. MINUTES Commissioner Riggs nzacle a motion #a approve file minutes from #i~e May '7, 2002 meeting as amended, Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. R©ZZ CALZ: Perry; yes, Fish, yes; ZeCros, abstain; Foster, yes and Riggs, Yes, Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VL BUSINESS A. Public Hearing regarding a ten#a#ive subdivision tha# ~~votxld crea#e I2 parcels in an area nor#ii of Tulane Avenue in the recently approved Transit Oriented Development {TOD} on Jackson County Assessment flat 372W03CC, Tax Lot I00, and 372W03C, Tax Lot 206, The project area is located in a TOD Lo~v Mix Residential zoning district. There was no conflict of interest or ex-parte con~znunication by any Planning Con3znission Member, E Tozn 1-Iuznplzrey, Planning Director and I~.cz~ C~ersclzler, Community Plazmer presczztecl tine Planning Departzz~ent Staff Report. Mr. 1-luz~~l~lzrey stated that this phase of tl~e TOD, known as Jackson Oaks Subdivision, Unit Nuztlber 1, is adjace~7t to property still in the county. "l"his subdivision can. be considered part of Phase 1 of the overall T~vizz Creeks Developzz~ez3t and is incorporated into the area bcnefitted by the 1-laskell Street and West Pine Street irnproveznents. Mr. Gerscl~ler stated that this subdivision will include Single Family I4oznes on individually accessible lots and "cluster" homes accessible froze a comzrzon driveway. Development will be siz-nilar to that in the TOD Master Plan and includes pedestrian walk-~vays. The county has stated that half street izrzprovements will be required which must meet city standards. lgalf of Tulane Avenue has been az7nexed into the city. The units in this subdivision will receive city water. One goal is to loop the water system to prevent low pressure from occurring at the end of the line. Correspondence froze Bob Pierce, Public Works Director, amends the Public Works StafflZeport to allow water line looping from the north. Correspondence froze Denise Marshall, 2395 Tulane Avenue, vas read into the record by Mr. Gerschler. Mrs. Marshall is concerned about tl~e ground water supply in this area. It was explained that when the engineering is done for the project the ground water supply will be taken into consideration. Herb Farber, Farber Surveying, 675 Glenn Way, stated that the improverrzents of Taylor Road should not be tied to Jackson Oaks Subdivision. Ke also believes that curb and gutter should not be constructed at this tune so as to preserve the country feel of the current neighborhood. He said that using "bio-s~vales" rather than curb and gutter would allow storzxz water to remain in the ground and help preserve ground water in the area. A ditch already exists alozzg Tulare and Mr. Farber does not foresee azzy ground water problems. Water service lines should be placed by the engineer when in~proven~zent plans are prepared az~d will be constructed to Public Works standards. Willy Del~orte, 4166 Sunland Avenue, asked about the driveway being located izz front of leer Douse and clain-zed that someone had told her that there would not be a street there, Denise Marshall, 2395 Tulaz~e Avenue, lzad the same concern as Mrs. DeKorte about the driveway that will serve the six cluster homes, Jan Madsen, 2361 Tulanc; Avenue, does not want to loose her views of the Table Rocks or the rural look of the neighborhood and is also concerned about water in tl~e wells. Debbie Ratty, 4479{1 Sunland Avenue, wants to keep the rural look and claimed that Bret Moore said that no roads would take access froze Sunland Avenue or Tulare Avenue. She believes there will be an increase in traffic and has no desire to bring her lot into the City. Residents froze the Parkview Subdivision asked Tozn 1-luznphrey when tl~e north side of Tulare Avenue was annexed and he replied that it was about eight n~zonths ago. Public notice was not required because a single ~}roperty oivz~er sought the am~cxation. Debbie McDonald, 4146 Sunlancl Avenue, feels that the dcvelopzz~ent that has taken place so far leas effected her well and grauncl water supply far izrigatiozz. Size alsa does not want to base the rural look to this area and believes that there will be more traffic. She claims that she was also tall that there waulcl be no street aff of Tlzlanc .Avenue. Tozn Humphrey explained that the Twin Creeks Developmezzt will increase property values anti that there will not be a through street off of Tulare Avenue but just a driveway that serves six cluster homes. Mr. Humphrey also said that Bob Pierce, Public Works Director, l~zas offered to check the static levels of wells i~~ the area to see if changes accur over tizz~e as a result of new developzx~ent. Linda f3eckmann, 2315 Tulare Avenue, stated that she has noticed a change in water quantity and would like tlxe static level ofwells checked an lzer property. Sloe asked if there would be street lighting and if there ~vatzld be a schoal added in Central Paint far the increase in Ixaznes being constructed iz1 this area. Tam Kumplarey explained that a new sclzaol in the Tt~D would be up to the voters afGentral Faint and School District #6. This is z~ot something that the City ofCentral Paint can collect revenue for through SDC's. The Schoal District has redrawn its boundaries to adjust class sizes at the elementary schaols. There is property set aside fog civic use in the TOD if it becomes necessary to build a new school, Andy DeKorte, 4166 Sunland Avenue, has lived on his property for 38 years and is concerned about his well because other wells have failed. I~1e alsa complained about dirt being dumped. by his house and said Bret Moore also told him (here would be no access into Twin Creeks from Sunland Avenue or Tulare Avenue. f~erb Farber stated that the wells in this area lead received water from irrigation z-unoff when the fields tivere being flood irrigated for agriculture. Since this area is no larger being used for agriculture, irrigation runoff is not available for the sl~allo~v wells in this area. 1<n response to the access to the six cluster homes Mr. Farber explained that this is the only feasible tvay to gain access to these Tots and stated that the plans submitted meet tl~e current subdivision standards. Bret Moore, 1132 Cxlengrove Avenue, explained that the Tt:tD area has been in tl~e works for about 2 % years. The only part of Tackson {yaks Subdzvisian that was not Master Planned was the area that will take access off of Tulare Avenue because it was under separate ownership and not part of the original annexation. Notices and mailings have been sent out and meetings have taken place to provide information to residents of Cezztral Point and surrounding areas about the TC}D. Mr. Moore said floe dirt left by Mr. De~.az-te's lot is being used for back fill in other parts of the development and would be used up in the near future. Street lighting will be added at the discretion of the Public Works Department. Mr. Moore believes that this development will have a zniz~izxzum impact on schools. No through street is planned from Tulare Avenue only a driveway to six lots. I'lze curb, gutter anti sidewalks will also be at tl~e cliscrctian of Public Works Departrrzez~zt. fIe alsa emphasized the fact that there will be z3a apartments, condos, multi-family or caznznercial buildings nearTtzlazze ar Sz.zcaland Avenue. Mr. DeT~orte suggested that the driveway be planned through tlzc Qpezz Space {park} an the East side of tl~e development instead of using Tulane Avenue.for access. It was explained that this (Jpen Space is not zoned residential and Mr. Moore does zlot orvn it, the City does. Ken Cerschler explained the appeal process to the City Council ifresiclents disagree with the Planning Commission's decision. Residezxts from Parkvie~v Subdivision asked if tlxe fJpen Space could be rc-zoned to residential use to allow for tl~e driveway and cluster hazne development atzd Chairman Piland stated that it might be an option, but did not say if it were possible. It would be up to the City Council to change zoning in this area. The issue ofpczblic safety and reduction in open space vas questioned ifa driveway was allowed to be constructed through a designated park site. Commissioner Riggs made a motion to adopt Resolution S4fi approvin; tlxe tentative Jackson Uaks subdivision sEZbject to the reco~z~mended cor~ditiozrs of approval and amended Public Works Staff Report. Caznn~issianer Foster seconded tlzc nlatian. RC}LL CALL: The motion passed unaniznausly. i3. P~zblic Hearing to review a Site Pla~~ Review application for the construction of 6 office buildinbs on East' Pine Street near the Umpqua ;Qank. The subject property is zoned C-4, Tourist and Office Professional and is ide~itified on Jackson County Assessment Plat 3'7 2W 02I3, Tax Lot 200. There was na conflict of interest ar ex-parte communication by any Planning Commission Merrzber. Matt Samitore, Coznznunity Planner, presented tl~e Planning Department Staff Report. Mr. San~itore reported that tlae agent far this project is Charles Beek, 23G~ Jacksonville Hwy, Medford, OR. Mr. Beck Landed out a site desigza to the commission n~enabcrs. Mr. Saitore stated that this develapznent will align with the Nauznes develapznent across tl~e street. The agent is aware of the future traffic signal an East Pine and is willing to pay an equitable share of the cast of the signal. There should be no adverse affects to traffic after the signal is installed. A seven foot { T'} easement is being asked far on tl~e north portiaza of the lat. Buildings constructed shall meet the 25` {twenty-five foot} top-af=stream bank setback and, since a poz~tion of the lot is in a l00 year fiaod plain, alt finished ftaars must be 1' {one fact} above the Base Flaad Elevation {BFE}. Fez3ces znay be built if they cazrzply with the 25° {twenty-five foot} top-af-stream bank setback. There will be one shared entrance with Umpqua Hank. 152 parking spaces will be provided which exceeds tlxe recaznmended amount. Any signs installed must have a sign permit and comply with the zoning district's sign code, Jackson County Fire District #3 had ra comrnerts at this ti~nc but the develapmerrt will reed to meet any requirenzcnts Fire District #3 deems necessary. Drive-up facilities will be built into l or 2 of t]~e brzildi~~~s Car future use. Right-irr, right-out turns lanes will be necessary until the troche sign~rl is installed. Tl~e agent, Chuck Beck, stated that the access point will align with the Naurnes Pear Blossom access paint. 1-le has no problenx ~vitl~ allowing; the City ~ 7~ nt. l-~e would like to be able to da some landscaping along the bank of Bear Creek. The `G~,> Building will be fronting East fine Street. Robert Boggess, Crom ~aurnes stated that his caznpany is ire support of tl~e project. Cozzzzxrissioner Fish oracle a rrrotion to adopt Resolaztiozz 54'~ approving tlzc Site l'larz far the construction of 6 office b~zildirzgs orz East Pizze Street zzear the Umpqua Bank subject to the recomznerzclecl conditions of approval. Carnmissioner Foster seconded the motion. RcJLL CALL: The oration passed unanimously. C. Public hearing to review azz application for a fence variance of 653 lY>ieado~vbrook Drive. The applicant is regtzesfing Eliot portions of a proposed fence be constrzzeted of a heiglzf ofsix feet in a side yard setback ~vlzere the code allows a maximzzm height of 42 inches. The subject propez-ty is located in the R-1-8, Residential Single Family zoning district on 1b.Cap 37 2~V U113C, Tax l/ot 930U. Ken Gerschler, Con-rmunity Planner, stated that the applicant was not presort and behaved that they must Dave had a family emergency or else they would be here. Ile gave the Commission members the option to snake a decision an the variance torrigl~t or table the application until tha next meeting. Commissioner LeGros made a motion to table the fence variance fo the next z-egulaz•ly scheduled meeting. Cornrnissioner Fish seconded the rnatian. ROLL CALL: The motion passed unanirrrnsly. VIT, MTSCEGL~,NEG-US Matt Samitore, Comrnirnity Planer, asked the Planning Commission ifthey could rrreet a second tiara in ,lone to discuss the 2°d Phase and Final PUD ofMillcr Estates which does rat require a public notice. The Planning Commission agree to rrreet June 18, 2402 and add the fence variance with Miller Estates. Torn Humphrey spoke to someone at US Departrrrert of Transportation and they are developing a World Smart Growth Model Handbook and would like to include the Twin Creeks T{~D as one ofthe models. ~I~~. ~.DJ4UR~IIV~ENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjout~~ tl~e tnectin~. Cott~tnissiot~tcr Petty seconded the motion. RQLL CALL: Motion gassed ut~anit~~ously. Meeting was adjo~ttned at 9:45 P.M. .L .E_.~~lYL'fi~c7 J..l~i~~A.t1. A~lV~.l4~kRT Jr~ryA~~A' J,Z. JE!i A~~3.S.T ~-~TEARII~IG I~.ATE .dune I ~, 2002 TO: Central Point Planning Coznznission F'R4:~11~: Matt Samitore, Community Planner SCJ~iJ1~CT: Final Development Plan-Miller Estates P.U.D., Phase 11 ~!~plicatzt/ C}`yzzer: 1r3rad Miller, Tz~.zstee 2364 E. McAz~dre~.vs Road Central Poizzt, CSR X7502 A~erzt: Hoflbuhr ~ Associates, Izxc.l Douglas C. McMahan 3155 .Alameda Street ##241 Medford, f~R x}7504 ~un~z~~ary: The applicant, Brad Miller requests that tl~e Coznznissiozz review and approve the Final Development Plan for the second phase of the Miller Estates Planned Unit Development. Tl~e site is split zoned as R-1, Residential Single-Family and R-2, Residential Two-Fanxily and is located in the vicinity of Scenic Avenue and the Logue Valley Highway. .Authorit~r: CPMC 1.24.02.0 vests the Planning Coznznissiozz with the authority to review and approve Final Development flans for P.U.D.'s. No public notice is required in this situation. A ~licable ~,a~v: CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. Planned Unit Development CPMC 17,20.010 et seq. R-l, Residential Single Family District CPMC 17.24.010 ct seq. R-2, Residential Two Family District Uisczzssiozz• CPMC Chapter 16.68 descz-ibes the requirement and applzcation processes for Planned Unit Developments. IZZitially, the applicant subn~zits a prelhninazy development plan with maps describing lot confZgura#ion, property boundaries and a schedule of the plazuzed completion dates. If the plan is approved by the P.ianning Commission, the applicant is allowed a period of six months to provide t7:e G`zty t~vith a co~ay of fhe .F`inal DeueTopt~sent .Platt d~rrtonstt~atitrg tTrat all ©f the conditions atad rcr~uiremet2ts cif the Pt-elitnitraty U~v~lvpraaetit~rlatr hr:ve heetz nzet. The Planning Cozx~znission will then review the Final Plan and decide to approve or deny the plan as submitted. The City Council will xeview the Commission's decision at a subsequent meeting. The preliminary devclopznent plan and a Conditional Use Permit for the Miller Estates P.U.D, ~..w `I'lae Planning Coz~~n~issiaz~ zzlay take az~e of tlic fallowing actions in regard to the final clevelopa~~ezzt plan for Phase II of tl7c Miller Estates 1'lanazed t7nit l~evelopzz~cnt. 1 p 7znent ~totzhh ~se n fiazdin s of fac -.-._ ..... _ . ... e .. ._~... contain d izz the rzeco d and ... .,.. _. ~ , ~ _ ._ ';~~ d conclusions of Ia~v ~•~ sub`ect ~ onzzrzezzded condzttans J of approval as set foz~th izl t l~esaltation 433 and this staffreport; or ~&~ ~ ~~.'~`... ~ ~. Deny the final dcvclopa7zent plan laased azz findings of fact az-ticulated by City Staff. 3. Continue the review aftlze halal developrrzezzt plan at tl~e discretion ofthe Cozrznaission. ,~~.. Exlxit?zfs• A. Final ~3evelopznezxt 1'lazx-Miller- Estates, I'lxase IU Prelizxxzzxary Miller Estates Flan. ~3. ~'lannizzg Corrzinissiozx Resolution X33 C. Public Works Meznorandzzzn Taatccl Jtzzxe 1 ~, 2(J02 IJ, Z'lazxzzing De~artrrzezxt Reeonxznezxtlccl Cozxciitions of ~p~roval Cs:tt'lannin~t98£151 miller2.~wpd J .. v t,? ~~hi~bx~ t~~~} ~~ZZ~~ ~s~.~~~s s v~B~~v~ ~~o~v, pxAS~. ~ : _,:_. ~~ ~ {4} t ~ t ~ ~ ~+^-~`)i'1 ~I~D CC}~vS EV1 ~.J~~~Y o~"a ,,~a:,r~ ~ ~ ~~`'T HDFF8UHR k ASSOCIATES, !NC• 3155 ~ ........._ -...» LoCQfBd 31T; ~ ~ ~~l9 ~,W , '~ ~ $. 4~ rta BG iIOT7 ,~., ~,~~$, ~ ~W ~J ~ ALAItEDA STREET SUITE SO2 MEDFORD, ORECpN tfi s. "~~• 8Y: pOUCLAS C SFCLtAHAH {S4i} 779-4645 ' PLS No 1913 T3TS , ^-- SC L " t t ~j [ y a , ,~ , i, ~~~Y Oi ~8CT17'Q~ iO1 FilY JC1CI{S (7I') ~{1 Lf Z7~YY {JF8~QF1 / C.x. ! ~ 199a" , A E: i >x 5D BASIS OF 8EARINC: SOUTH 80LlNDARY OF NORTH VALLEY ESTATES { } 5 ~ ~ Q = 5ET Sj8`x24" REBAR WITH PLt5TICSCAPI57 MPEANIT Nq, 1 "0,1ACi,iAHAH L5 19i3". r ~'~ ~~ {C7 ~ g ~ N ~ ~ $D.l~tCdjtAHAH 1.S 1913 YIiTH PLASTSC CAP STASAPEn X ~ tpUHO 5j8" RE8 W 3 '`+' }' I `7 E CC ~ ~ 1 ~ ~" r 4 ~ IGf7F:E1`1 G~E:.~`! rI.IF3[3EVl.at{)1`t y i W $ AR ITN PLASTIG CAP STAStPEp p'1•tC1.iANAN tS t913" PCR P1AT OF 1,itLLER ESTATES SUBDIVISION, PHASE t, i .~ ~ ~ ~ Y •.~ ~ x ~ x i ~ 1 i. ,*' x FOt1Np LEAD PLUC ANp TAG W3TH WA5NER 5TAliPEn `1S t913" I ~µ I ~ u,) xb• 1.- t ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ '~ . +~ FOUND Sj8" IRON PIH (UNLCS5 OTHERWISE ixnIGATEO}. {ts) {srs} ~ {=7 (4q) i {2p} ~ {TS} {is} {35} ~ {3&} ~ {37} sCt R07t tt r -.,ti ~ y O SET SjB" x 2t" RES?AR WITH E{ETAL CAP STAItPED LS S9S3' 8a.6G' dP.b6' aa.ex G.D3' ~ 70.06' 6.00 loA 3 r x' ' 1a'rut-..;~ ~ ~ + kYa' ta' 1~ ~ / ~ B.C.Y.S,A. ~ ACAR CREEK VALLEY SANITARY AUTHORITY. ai +§~. ~ n lea' PUE a: EASEMENT FOR PU8L1C UTIL1T1E5, STORS/ pRAINACE, GAS, WATER, (~ ~ ~ i~ { ~.~ { {~ za9^la'4a'tt ELECTRSC, TELEPHONE, CABLE TELEYfS10N AND SAHtTARY SEYJEA } _~ ~2 ~,a_ 53 ~~ 5~4 ~~ 55 ~, ~6 ~, ~ ~ ~ `~xt ~`~~~`~` G~'i ~ t~` S H x CONSIRUCIfON Akin kAl.BiI£NAHCE. ; }~~~ 1 1 ~ ,~'~ ! F1LEp SUftYEY NU-tBER. ~ cb ~ S ~.~L 1 ~ Ih J.C.p.A. n JACKSON COUNTY DEEn REGARDS. r6• ruck sq NtRE ~x .?Y",~i~ ~',' ~S} j l ~~ l;, ~ ~ = PER PLAT qF GAE£N CLEN SilBDIYISigN. UNiT Nq, 2, _.kG~~-....._ 4' sards'stw w ~ ufltl-_--~ -~"T~-..__ I _,,, ~r,QL___ ~-R.~ ~~ "'^ ~ ® dS,U' i CPE x CITY OF CENTRAL POkNT WATER SYSTE}! AHD 5TOR1! , '`J ti~' ~~ DRAINAGE SYSTEM EASEMENT, BEIHq CREATED HEREON. s . ~..ti'd'.ft N ORIV ~L' ~ oY` Y~`a~". s fj~~P'kS' tJ7 n ~1 l~ t ~~fir Si'J.LES: } "~~ `~ ~ ~ 1 1 ,s t.} ~ 15 FOOT B,C.Y.S.A. SEWER LINE EASEMENT PER 1HSTRUMENT ~aa,a6'~ ... a%o`d_"~` --'-i:rq ~ v"si.ob_r -";~=~h ~ t , udmSs'S+"K $) t~ 1 'p, HO. 00-dS53i J,G.O.R, SEE SNCET 3 DF 3, ) y x6' rUt~'"' u w~~` W ~t HptL j2.J,L `"•.,,`~ Q l Y6y.y{' a~ )~2q ~ l "S 2.) 3 F00T SIpEWALK EASEMENT ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ S ~~ ,~ S 7~4 ~ ~ ~~ \,s~3~, ` ~ ~ ,,,T•scc R~ ~z g ~ j~ l n 3.) EASEMENTS CREATEp PER txSTRlf4ENT5 k0. 71-f1978 AND j [[~~ .3 C3 ~,,t 72-0572.t FDR TRAHSIiiSSipH ANO D!$TR18ttIlON OF ELECTRICITY ~, w ~ w ~ ~ ~ ,'", ~ t` ~ ~ t ~ ~ F~ :k SJGHT {ALLOW ACAO5S TH1S PROPERTY), ~ ~ ~ ~ g t 1 taar i 1 Nat•~+ai~lr ~ 4 ~° warss'ta•t \ 3 „ 1. - sa.oa' sa,p6' aa,aa' aa,oo' , !~ ! t EY I xa~7yy'wta•r j 3 S ; ~ LOT SIZE v aa.6a'_ .. a<.a6'- - aa.ao - - u6S - xa.a6 p ad.aa' .~ S 1 ~.,+ a.a6'~ry" T, ktaras'rf'c -7 Ywr jJJ( s'~~ ta•rsYt ~ I 1 ~- • ~T • S93id$£ * ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ I~isf t ~ ttarEa'i J' ! l '~~~ bT 55 5,367 Y g g ~ ~ ra' rut; ~ f J Q xx.aa' R1 ! ~ ~ s6 6,a6o :rt wrz ~x ~..^' ~ i ~I I !y' S8 s.spn M_g~:~ ~ ~ _.~fia~_._ ~ ._x~_?s~__ ~W sasa~_ _ +~„~ ~' 1 ~~ ~ ~ ~ Get;~ 54 s.os Y sass5'1<'x z sa' h{AR1A AYEh€UE '___. J ~ K~ t cn a;sos 6S .~'"~ s "f*~~ -. ~{CPE ANO PRtYATE STR£ET4 s 3 ;~ 62 5,3n2 t fO` PUJ~ 1 ~ «• -. -'1 art NaTt = la.o6• {~9~ ~ {38} :a~ ~~ 8 ~ ~}~ ~ - r ~tJ ~ ~7~ ~~ ~~ $~ ~_ 1 I ~ ~ ~ ~S , t f6UN6 Sjb' 1A ~H PW ru jR au1 {S/H 3Y9i} 4n ~ ~ ; 13 63 5,653 ~~~- ",'' ~°i~a~ e 1 ~ 3 ~~ 6~ 5.598 S,61S ta' ruc ~ ~'°~ ~. ~ 1~ 66 5.635 i ~ i~ b8 5,648 5,391 ~~ ~ ~ ~ { j ;~ 70 5.394 - .1 1 1 1 S~ 1t s Sat rasa' mod''] 9f .~ta':Ptd't ! ~ 73 6;522 „T ~ 1 1 y 1 u"t Tue:t 74 5,2p8 t 1 1 .! t:Y+t etr+arx bcYa~K6 7S 5 ., "" r 1 La a x.as 76 ,208 3,208 ~-........ Y+aru•aa"t 1d7.t9• ~- ,,,..r'' 1 ! \5 , a.fr s~'+ 77 TRACT "A" 5,208 &,144 ~o.~ xts ., is ~ TRACF ~B" 28,SS9 a~ jUtrx c.:Pauaia~"urQ ~~ Cira~s1t0ua~rf8 ~ +a,6o TC ~~78 2}.8~ 14 xYStx ata a6a rue a(R t62u ~ r 4 s~`x asi aas L1 Y1 (Sf SJ ! ._.,_,~,,,s ~ EXPIRES t2j3ijO2 (n2n33ah2.Cxg) SHEET x DF x ~~~~~~ ' " M 3 LSE R E STAT ES" ~ ~~~~ EASE ~ tCAliDREWS ~~, ~~~ 1,~.~~V~ ~~~1~ {547}773-3SBOOti 97504 ".FI PL~iNNFp CJ1rt~.4t1N17'Y pEYFLC?PIvlEN7" -~.~:.~ ~Prapased kviantrfactured Horr7e Su~divfsfan~ S~AR€AH G. ~it£.eR '~ P,O. SOX S7i3 Located in: GEFtTRAt Pa€ttT, OREGON 97507. {542}SS4-2757 ~~58 ~.~. ~~~ 0'~ ~eCtl4n 7a, ~.~7~., f2.2W., ~.~. StJ$~YTNC~ .~tiGk5at~ Caunty, t3regan DOUGLAS G, Mc1AAHANj SGtII9: ,fit: -=rJO' ~7ate: JULY ~ ~, ~ JSH HOFf 8tiliR do A550C. tkC. 7052 E. ,3AGKSON STREET MEDFORO, OREOOM 97504 TeX LOf S{}Q ~r ~j{}{} {547}779-4547 'I 14.0 Acrss, more or Less ~y~c~~ 7 ~ S,q it .,...,. ............ ~ LENORA tnNE_ ........... ~ ¢ Qc~~ ~ 1 ~ i t _ h p S ~~tr st rr ~u i ~ . i (/[~24 23 '€ I' ~~\} (j~i (/G~\} {f (.7\f ... , . 1 J 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ f \ ~ 1 J 1 l {( Q 1 ~ ;}~ ...... ..~..~.....-F~ ( ~ ~ ; st tw .W ~( TY re iw ~ YY k'. iu. Ste l 'i I~~~ri{,~.,y ! Ju+fM ` ~ ~ 1~>H W W'+1 ; i W Y Ya.+% ! T!~ Y , F E ~ ~~'."~y'~t ~.I .Iii ... Mt'" ~ ~!r 71+4 F Q C! 5 W. F t+% i CK+.lxMri f "~ ~ h . . py iwb..4. ~ MJ~ ;i fR t 1lwJ rSWVf4M+ Y ,~n~ ~"' } I) \ :.~ rit.M ., ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~Y S ~~ i i i """ ~t ' ~(1 F 1 f ° '2 ` 3' ~`~ ~ t 7~ 15 1~' 17 ~ 98 19 2Q 21 ; 22 ~ ~ 3 ~ i '% g~ ,; ~ 9 9 6 7 8 ~~ •u.t siw i i tnw' '.~. wy.r .,.r w.w w.r a~.+ war ++w' waw aaa P 'i'""'' a ~y4 F i'S i tb ~GP AMfM it rr~ .n « «.~..~. .. ....r . . ~ .G+~ 1 i ; V x~ }µ1,y - ~w.w w aw-. ~ .. ...ww r » ......~ r wrrw- ~..~.. -.wry « ww~.+.. 3 X ~ ,~ . € ` t `~ ~ ..... R ~ ~ i C`l 24 ; ' ~ Ywly ~ >~ 37 ~ ~ 36 ~ 33 32 ~ ~ ~C1 ~'~ >28 27 ,26 25 ~~v ~ \ ~°J6 `~ ~~~`„~ ~ ~ R.¢7 ' ~8 .t9 5U 57 52 53 S4 r aw,r ~>~ ` ~,ii~ i ..._ .i \ nu..r ~ .wyr r.'rr r ~ I i ! n l.' a.c L,Y urt ~ ry .e i r ~ ~ rn ~ 73 ~ r ~ r ~ ~ ~„~. ra.on n .ow ! .4 i/ ~ rj ~U 6 t r;fd, ~~F {7 ~ V ~ II 57 i ; ! I I '~+ • ~ `, ~~ V 5 5 .Iw ~~ yfi~ M1 \ ws __~. ~... ld4SS ~1,~I {Y~+yA ! ]'!'rte AaY }1 ` w ` ~ fN4CiM4l qI.Y{ y t ~! 1llI+Y.JW ~iM~>A2t~t '~ =r~>~ ~~ .~'.4~^Y ~~ .h r :ti.: ~~~_ 4. Canditiona~ Approval. 'lxe wit~zin application £or a Preliminary Deve~.opzz~~nt Plan far a ~'lazxned Unit Developzn~nt is hereby conditional~.y approved, subject to the canditians set earth on Exhibit ':A", which is attac~xed hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Passed by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 15"~~ day o~ .Planning Commission C~xairman A"X'TES`I' City Represent e Approved by me this _~~h" day of r Planning Comzrtission Chai~rr~an 2 - PL~i~SS~ING COt~IMTSSZO23 F~ESGLUTZt~N NC1. 433 { ~.fl209£i } .~ .~ ~-~ f u wn•'q:Ja.'.wN .~ ~yZY •; ~*.c~ t ~~_~t'kf'jr'^~j r y, n."Y .Cl.!['_~~~lY.l..EF'.i..t~l`t~.t'..,~J t7Lt7,i`{1\~I`[(J~ SJ.I'.+:C.t~.AlA~3.~1'EA ~~11~.t~~QAYsJ l.fA' ~A~~fiA\V Y~l.t 1. A final develap~z~ent plan, containizag its final form fire infarznation rerl~~ired in the preliminary plan shall be subtnitfed to the City Gvitl~i~r six months ofappraval or by Mardi 1S, 1~~9. A six,~~~anth extension z~~ay be granted by the City upan the applicant's request az~d for goad cause. 2. The prajecf must camply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including, but nat lz`rr~ited to, the C3rego~i Uniforz~t Fire Code and structural Specialty Code. 3. 'I'he applicant shall submit final parking; landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the City far approval as part of the final d'eveloprrzenf plan.. ' 4. The applicant shall submit a cagy afthe Cavenanfs, Caries and Restrictians {CC~I'ts} or any comparable agreement gavez~ning the use, maintenance and continued pratectian of tlse 1'UD as part of the final developirient plaii. 5. The applicant shall schedule and attend pre-design meetings with [~1P i~Iafurral Cxas, p'ire Dzstricf ~To.'3 and the bear Creek Valley Sanitary ~ufhority fo mare specifically identify utility easements and the placement of fire hydrants and pipelines and aflzer ufitifies. 6. 'I`he applzcant shall pravide a fat laf in addifian to adult recreation facilities, the ixunxbcr and lacafian of which fo specified by file Canu~~ission. ;~ ~ v /' CITY QP CC=NTPA[_ PGCI~IT CJEP,~RTMENT' QF PUBLJQ 1NQ1?1tS STAI=p' t~~POf~T for MILL[=f~ C STATPS PUD PW1~ 98051 Date: September ~ 0, 1998 Applicant: Brad Miller, 236 ~, McAndrews, Medford, aregon 9750 Owner: Mariam Miller, ~i732 N. Pacific l-lighway, Central Point, Oregon 97502 Project: Miller Estates Planned Unit Development Location: Along Highway 99, east of South of North Valley Pstates Legal: T37S, R2W, Section 3B, Tax Lots 600 and 800 Zoning: R-~-6 {Tax lot 500} and R-2 {Tax Lot 600} Area: ~ 4.0 Acres Units: 78 lots f ~ existing lot + 1 lot for open space common area ~- 2 unidenti€ied lots ~- RV Storage lot. Plans: 1 page enti#led "Tentative Plan -- Miller Estates", dated 7116/98, prepared lay 1-loffbuhr & Associates Report fay: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Purpose Provide inforrr}ation 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 Requirerrtents ~'xistln lnfrasfrucfure: The Developet• shall demonstrate that all connections fo existing infrastructure {i.e. streets; wa€er, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage sysfems; 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 tl7e 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 rnainfaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by {as applicable}, the regulafory agency, utility owner, andlor proper#y owner involved. 2. Private Roadways: As illustrated on the tentative plan, C~r#h Drive and Marian Avenue are proposed to have a "street-right-of-way" width of 24 feet. We understand that these wi3[ be private streets. The Developer reportedly is proposing to allow parking on one side of the street. The creation of these private roadways, the plan of no connection #o Marys Way, and the fire lane connection to Nancy Avenue do not coincide with the original plan for.this area, Marys Way and Nancy Avenue were "stubbed-out" to provide for future connection to Tax Lot 500. It is our understanding that a previous proposed development for the subject tax lots included connection to these two streets, and also provided access to Highway 99. Residents on these two connecting streets objected to the proposed development at that time because of the concerns ..a + ` 1l-filler.~stafes PU1)1"entntile Plan P ~YL~ Sta, fJ'Report September 1 fJ, 1993 ,Page 2 of °cuf-thraug#~" traffic from Scenic Avenue to }-{ighway 99. #~{owever, fhe current design curia##s pedestrian, movement, #imiting the prapesed deveiapment's residents to only access {bath vehicular and pedestrian} fa Highway 9g. The City also requested that t#ts NVE Deve#apment provide a sfreef stub-oaf fo the subjscf fax fats. However, during the preparation of consfrucTian plans far fhe first phase, fhe Deve#oper indicated That the Mi#lers did not want a connection to (heir property, and thus one would not be provided. As a minimum, City PWD would suggest the possib#e inc#usion'af a lacking pedestrian date at fhe fire fans fa facilitate pedestrian traffic access To t~#arrcy Avenue. #f the developer is proposing to make These access ways private or publ{a streets, T17en the fallowing minimum vehicular traffic paved access widths {excluding fhe portion of arth Drive from the connection To #~{ighway 99 fo Ntarlan Avenue} would be recamrnended: Private Streets: The City does naf havs standards far private streets. The City has recently approved private streeT widths rangs'ng between 24-foot curb to curb widfh with t~.5 foot curbs an bath sides of fife sfreef {Rosswood ~sfatss and Cedar Shadows PtJD. 25-fact width in fata#}; to 29-foot curb to curb width wiTh (~.5 foot curbs on bath sides of the stresT {Wa#nuf drove Villags tv'#abile Name Park PL1D: 3rJ-foot width in iota#}. l~lo parking on sfresfs permitted. A minimum 2~-foot widfh {24-fact width curb-fo-curb with curbing} with na street parking psrrrriftsd is recommended. Allowances wou#d used to be made to provide far visitor parking. Public Streets: The City is uti#izing a new uResidenfial Lane" standard which consists of the fo#lawing: ~ A 25-foot-wide Trawled section, with a 2 percent crown #~ Standard curb and gaffers ^ A 2-foot-wide strip located behind fhe curb far #nstal#afian of water mefsr service box C:l Requires a ~0-foot-wide right-of-way. ~ Street parking not allowed an residential lanes. . F{owever, These €~esidential Lanes are designed fa accomrr~odate access fa a maximum of 10 dwelling units, and are intended fa be used far "in-~f#" Type projects only. The proposed projsct is somewhat o€ an "in-fill" type project, but has a signifcanfly greater number of dwe#fing units {7t3} than fhe planned use of The F~esidenf#al Lane. #f a residential Lane was determined not to be apprapriats far This devslaprnsnt, Then a standard #ocal street would be required, which has a 50-foot right-af-way and acerb-ta- curb width of 36 felt. Allowances would need fa be made To provide for visitor parking. The City P1ND is also recommending a minimurzi 36-foot curb-To-curb sfreef width with standard sidswatks far fhe portion of Urth Drive from the connection fa Highway 99.fo {Marian Avenue Sight-Triangles: 55-foot sight Triangles, clear of abstractions, will bs required at fhe Development's entrants off Highv~tay 39. ~t Miller.~'sttttes PUD Tentative flan PIYD Sttt, fJ"Report September It7 1998 1'rrge 3 Modifications fa Highway g9: The entrance fa the Development shall tae as approved by fhe dregan Department of Transpartatian {dDdT} and fhe Gity PWD. This should include additional nigh€-af-way dedication ar~d fhe insfailafian of acceleration and deceleration lanes along Highway 99 {similar fa fhe lane improvements completed far fhe dregan State PalicelLabor Temple facilities entrance}, a wider entrance street {firth Drive with a recommended 36-foaf curb-fo-curb minimum width, back to fhe intersection of Marian avenue}, and other improvements, as may be required by dDdT and fhe Cify PWD. . 1=nfrance design: Entrance small be designed to accommodate, as a minimum fhe fal[awing: E"or inbound traffic: fhe turnincg mavemenfs of an ~SHTd standard motor home/boat {MH1B} combination vehicle, without encroachment info fhe auffaound lane; and I'or outbound traffic: accommodafian of,~SNTd MHIS combination vehicle furninc~ mavemenfs within the easterly northbound lane far northbound traffic exifincg fhe proposed development seta ~Nighway 9g. The entrance design shall also afford minimal surface wafer flaw Pram the develapmenf onto the Nighway 99 right-of-way. 3. Private Sidewalks: The Cify PWD is recommending fhaf a minimum 5-foaf wide sidewalk section {with a suitable public ingress and egress easement requirement} be provided overlying the public-utility-easement or partitioned "spaces" andlar lots fa facilitate pedes#rian traffic {if fhe streets are fo be private streets ar Residential Lanes), on at least one side of fhe sfreef or lane. The sidewalk would be installed as part of the development and will be maintained by fhe property owner, similar fo the City's current ordinance requirement. 4. Landscape Buffer/Sound Wall: ~s part of the proposed development, fa provide far raise affenuafian and a visual buffer slang fhe Nighway 9g corridor fhaf barrier the prapased develapmenf, if is the Cify PWD's recammendafion fhaf fhe Developer provide designs for and be required fa implement and maintain a Cify and dDdT appraved landscape plan which, of a minimum, includes a landscaped buffer, {minimum 'lfl-foaf wide, maintained by fhe PUD} . consisting of irrigated landscaping and sidewalks along fhe applicable portions o{fhe Nighvray 99 righf-of-waylP.U.P. fhaf border flee proposed development from the sou[lawesfetly catner of fhe existing residence laf {Mrs. Miller`s residence}, fo the northwesterly career of Lot No. 3. if is. also recommended lay fhe Gify PWD fhaf a suitable sound wall be required fa be constructed by the Developer an fhe proposed development`s property slang fhe applicable portion of Nighway g9, for sound atfenuafion purposes. b. Sfarm I]rait3ac~e Infrastructure: The developer shat! develop a facility plan for the sfarm drain collection and conveyance system which provides for run-off tram and run-an onto fhe prapased develapmenf, any future development on adjacent properties, and any areas deemed by the Cify fhaf will need to tie-info fhe prapased development's storm wafer collection and conveyance system {i.e fax tats fa fhe south of fhe prapased develapmenf}. !f is aur.undersfanding that the sfarm drainage infrasfrucfure will be a public system, operated and maintained by fhe Cify: Suitable easements for sfarm drainage infrasfrucfure will need fo be dedicated fa fhe City for alignment, construction, and maintenance of fhe necessary sfarm drainage infrasfrucfure. f+ ` suitable system will need fa be designed for a minimum 'tt~-year sfarrrt event, designed to fhe J~ ~ ~~ Miller Fstaies 1'U17 ?"ertlati~~e Plesn T'FJ'D Stgj~'Report September I r1 199$ 1'rzge ~ City's Public V~Iarks Department's Standard Specifications and details {PVtiD Standards}, or as ofhervrise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. To aide in the reduction of flooding problems associated with Griffin Creek, Cify PtlVf~ is recommending that the deueloper be required fa discharge the majority, if not all, of the sfarm water run-aft' from Phis development into the sfarm drainage infrasfruc#ure stub-out of the North Valley Estates (NVJ} development (between fats 23 and 22 of NVE}. The storm water infrastructure of NVE has been up-sized to accommodate the developed storm t=cater run-off flows fram the fwa subject tax to#s and addifiartal tax fats fa the south of the development, with discharge of the collected sfarm waters infa Griffin Creek downstream of the box culvert an Scenic Avenue. sfarm drainage conveyance pipe stub-outs, through suitable easements in the development Ta Tax f_ots 700 and 1001, will need fo be provided and sfarm drain canveyai~ee lines may need fo be up-sized as necessary to accommodate existing and future developed property sfarm wafer run-off from the applicable fax lots {i.e. "Area of Benefit"} south of the proposed clevelapmenf. if the storm drain lines are needed to be cep-sized fram the size necessary to accommodate the proposed development and the storm wafer flows fram the axis€ing development of the fax fats {i.e. "Area of 8enefit~} south of the proposed development, fo provide additional capacity fa accommodate the projected future developed flaws of the Area of f3enefif fax lots, €hen the C"sty would propose fa compensate the Developer in the same manner as the NVE developer is to reimbursed for the up-sized sfarm drains That were installed in NVE, as approved by the City Council. Cify staff is currently determining the Area of Benefit and reimbursable costs fa the NVE develaper far up-sizing the storm drainage infrastructure fa accommodate sfarm water run-aft fram the fax-lafs south of NVE when they are developed {which includes the subject proposed development}. Cify staff is intending #a make a presenfatian to Cify Council at the C~c€ober 15, 199$ regularly scheduled meeting, far establishment of the area of benefit, and associated proportioned project fees {proposed to be assessed on a per acre basis} fo be applied to these southern fax lots far reimbursement #o the NVE developer for up-sizing the sfarm drainage system to accommodate the sfarm wafer run-off fram these southerly tax lots and minimize The impacts fa the flooding problems of the portion of Griffin Creek above the Scenic Avenue. The Developer of the proposed development tittill be responsible far payr~~ent to the Cify of fhe approved assessed costs for reimlaurserr~enf fa the NVE develaper far up-sizing fhe NVI~ sforrr~ drainage conveyance pipes, prior fa connection fo the NVE storm drain conveyance system. 6. ReinabTrrsernetTt b fhe L~eveta er for a Prorated Portion of fhe Hi tlwa ~9 Wafer l..irle E'xfensian - In March ~ 997, the Mayor and Cify staff met vsifh fhe property owners in fhe vicinity of fhe l~lighway 99 corridor, between the new Qregan State Police {CJSP} facility and the infersection of Highway 99 with Scenic Avenue. As discussed with the Developers during this meeting, if was fhe City's intent fo extend the 12-inch-diameter water line along the east side of Highway 99, from fhe Terminus at fhe new QSP facility, approximately 3,2dB feet north to a painT across fhe intersection at Scenic Avenue. The project proposed of This meeting was To also provide far an extension of the wafer line across Highway 99 near the fJSP facility, and another Highway 99 crossing at The highway's intersection with Scenic Avenue, It was the City's intent to have This portion of The wafer line installed by a consortium of the neighboring benefiffing property owners, at the benefitfing property owner's expense, The costs would be deferrnined by dividing fhe focal design, construction, testing, and start-up casts by the Total area {acreage] of property that would benefit {i.e. "Area of Benefit"} from flee extension of The water line. The # . ' Miller.~`states P(IL) 7errtative Plnn PFYL7 Sta, ffReport September 1 t1, 1998 Page S extension project and cast sharing plan was generally agreed fa by the property owners prosent at the meeting. . This project is identified as the Nighway 99/Scenic Avenue Water Line extension Project. The fofal project cast far this wafer line extension was approximately X148,040. City staff has determined tha# a Total net area of approximately 120 acres will receive benefit from The installation of this water Tine. Using this methodology, the surrounding affected tax lots would be assessed a project fee of approximately $ X1,208 per developed acre when the tax lot is developed and is connected to the City's water distribution system..t.Jsir~g this basis, the proposed Development's assessed cost for The 1-lighway 991Scenic Avenue Water Line extension Project would be approximately $'16,912. City staff is intending to make a presentation to City Council at The October 15, 1998 regularly scheduled meeting, for establishment of the area of benefit, anti project fees, fo be assessed an a per acre basis, for recovery of the casts far The extension of this water line. . 7. W~~fer 0isfribufiort Sysfem; The water distribution system should be a City public system and will need to be designed in accordance with City Standards, alla~ving a valved, 8-inch tee sfub- outand suitable easement {preferably through fats 64 and 6t3} for potential future development on tax lots 700, 1041, and 1002. The water system should be of "reinforced loop" design: one connection made to the water distribution stab-out between NVI~ lots 22 and 23; a second valved cannecflon made to the line termination at the south end of Nancy V11ay; and a third valved connection will need to be made €o the City's 12-inch water line aligned along Nighway '39. The Developer will also need to reimburse the City the costs {$ 3,140} to be reimbursed to the NVE Developer far the water line stub out through tax lots 23 and 22 to the proposed development. The City will reimburse the Developer for the water line stub-out to Tax Lofs 700, 1001, and 1002 in the same manner as the Developer of NVi~ is to be reimbursed for the sfub- out line that was extended to the proposed development. 8. Rigtrfs-of-WaKand ~asemertfs: Provide dedication for expansion of €he right-of-way along }-iighway 99 as may be needed fa afford tl7e requirements of UDC}T and the City PWD. Provide suitable and acceptable easements far any public works {PW} infrastructure located outside the public nigh€-of-way; minimum easement widths are 15-feet for one infrastructure utility; and a minimum of 20 feet far up fo three Infrastructure utilities. A separate 10-foot minimurz~ width public utilities easement {P.U.Iw.} should also be required outside the I-ligliway 99 right of way, and an both side of f1~e proposed development`s streets, for utility insfallafion. The City PWD is also requesting the requirement to grant the City a storm drainage easement in the open space area on the east side of the development, east of Griffin Creek, for inclusion of the ditch and access banks associated with the Gomef Way storm drainage discharge ditch. There may already bean easement recorded in this area for The former storm drain pipe alignment, but the flood of 1997 necessitafed the construction of a storm drainage ditch which may be located outside any existing easement. 9. 1~ravexnerafs to tti 1q rwaY 98: All improveri~ents to Nighway 99 including, but naf limited fo, street section, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, bikeways, street lights, storm drainage, and Traffic control and delineation, shall be coordinated and approved by ODaT and the City P1ND; and shall be cansfrucfed at the expense of the Developer as part of the development of the proposed v . ~ t~ Hitter estates PUfl Tentative Ptan .t'T3jL1 Staffr2eport September 1 [1, I998 Page 6 PUD, Acceleration and deceleration lanes meeting t~D{~`S' standards, similar to thosa installed on Highway 99 fo accommodate vehicular ingress and egress from the t~regon State PolicelLabor temple facilities, are recommended fo be required to be installed at the proposed development's connection with Highway 9g. As approved by {~DC-T and the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required Improvements along Highway 9g until a later date. if any or a}l of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer ws"Il be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with' t?DC1T andlor the City {as applicable} for the developmenttimprovement ofthe street section and appurtenances {i.e. highway section, sidewalks, curb, gutter, street lights, storm drainage, traffic delineation, etc.} along tlae development's frontages with Highway g9, as required and approved by UDOT and City PWD '10, Traffic Barricade and Street Terrriinafion on Nano Avenue and Mar s Wa . A suitable Cify approved permanent traffic barricade, applicable signage, and street termination work {i.e. curbing, street section, etc.} shall be designed and implemented at the Developer's expense at the southern end of iVlary's Way and Nancy Avenue. ~ `l. Creek Setback Reguiremenfs: Creek setback requirements {particularly CPMG `S7.6C?.flgCt ~.} may make the fencing of the RV storage lot unbuildable due fo setback requirements. Should require maintenance access easement and a 2Q-foot maintenance access road as Indicated in the creek setback requirements of the City's municipal code. `Cris access road would also provide access. to BCVSA's €acilities `l2. Flood Sfucly of Griffin Creek. The proposed development places improvements and structures within or alters the 1C}0-year floodzone associated with Griffin Creek. The Developer should be required to Nava a 10g-year flood study analysis performed, The flood study must provide findings which indicate what affect does the placement of the proposed improvements and structures have on the base flood elevation and floodzone boundary, and what affects will the modification of the floodplaln elevation and floodzane boundary have on the existing facilities and properties surrounding the proposed development. The study should also include finish floor elevations of all existing structures that may be affected lay any changes in the floodplain. The Developer's engineer shall determine the existing base flood flow rates and the base food elevation contours; and illustrate the existing boundaries of the floodplain and floodway €or a '10{l-year "base flood" storm event associated wifh Griffin Creek through the affected properties. The construction drawings shall indicate the revised base flood elevation contours and boundaries of the floodplain and ffoodway expected to occur following the completion of any development within the identified floodzone {also referred to as the "Area of Special Flood Hazard"}, including any affected sidegradient or upgradient areas. The information determined in ibis study will also be used to determine minimum finished floor elevations for any structures that will be placed within the area of special flood hazard. General 1. All cons#ruction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipu}ated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, andJor upgrades as may be approved by the Gity Administrator or his designee prior to the approval o€ the construction plans for the proposed development. ~~ Miller ,states PUD Tentative 1'lars PYYD Staff Report September 1 t7 199$ Pcsge 7 During construction, changes proposed by tl~e geveloper shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the Cify PWq {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 fo, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife {DFUV}, aregnn Department of Environmental Quality {D~Q}, Oregon Division of Sfafe Lands (DSE-}, U.S. Arrriy Gorps of Engineers {AGC71=}, affected irrigation districts, and ODC}T, 3. Prior fo approval and acceptance of fhe project, fhe Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide fhe Public Works Department with "as-built"drawings. If feasible, fhe 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 AufoCAD~, or ofher form as approved by fhe Cify PWD, As-built drawings are fo be provided to fhe Cify which provide "red-line" changes fo final approved construction plans that identify fhe locations and or elevations {as appropriate} of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim nr lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; wafer and sewer lateral stationing; modifications fo street section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; ofher below grade ufility litre locations and depths; etc. Provide a "red- line" hard copy {on Mylar~'}, or an approved alternative forma#, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoGAD~ compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior fo acceptance of public infrasfrucfure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as afherwise approved by the City Admirristrafor or his designee. ~#. All elevations used on the construction plans, on femporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark and be sa noted on the plans. Af least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for fhe proposed development, the location of wf~ich shall be as jointly determined by fhe 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 DFCt. 6. Easements for Cify infrasfrucfure {i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]} should be a minimurrr of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Pasements for public storm drainage; sanitary sewer, and t~vater lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.1=, Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five {5} feet from fhe edge of the easement. If two or more Cify owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required. basement dedications in final deeds or GC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indiea#e that easements must be maintained with suitable, all- weafher, driveable vehicular access to City public infrasfrucfure facilities, as determined by fhe City PWq. 7. Prier to the Gify PWq final approval of fhe construction plans for the proposed improvements, fhe following should be submitted: ~. ~~ Milter E`st~rtes PUB Tentative Plan 1'3firl) StaffRepor! September 10, 1998 Page 8 C~ ~, cagy of written approval from Fire dis#rict 3 of The final street and driveway layout, site access, fire hydrant placemen#, and water sys#em improvement plans for the prapased devetoprnen#. la The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blacks shauld be completed an the plans. C~ A copy of v~,rritten approval fram ODC}T regarding Flighway g9 improvements {as applicable}. . Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations {i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, #ap of Ranks, ditchlchannel inverts, sfree# elevations, eta.}, to which the prapased development's infrastructure will canned t'nto existing improvements, prior fo final canstructian plan design and submi#tal far final approval. 9, C}verhead power lines. if applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and Light, US West, and TCl Cable, to convert any overhead electrical paver, Telephone, ar cable facilities within the proposed development fa underground facilities, prior fo the acceptance by the City PV1/D of the public improvements associated with the prapased development. All agreements and casts assat:iated with the conversion of These facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer, 1 Q. The accurate locatians of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, steal! be accurately portrayed {both horizontally and vertically} on the construction plans and as-built drawings. ~ 1. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to the Pubfiic Works Department a drawing of the recorded I~inal Plaf map reproduced on Mylar'~ and in an acceptable electronic form in AutaCAD~ forrnaf. The Fina# Plat shall be fled to a legal Government corner and the State Plane Coordinate System. The FinaE Plat shall either reflect ar be lifer modified to reflect any applicable "red..line" changes noted in the construction "as-builfs", at the discretion of the City Administrator or his designee. 1~. If tl~e proposed development places sfructures within The 100-year floodzone of Griffin Creek, the Developer's engineer will be required to explain and provide detail as to what affect the placement of these structures will have on The floodzone; what affect it will have on the floodplain elevation and #laodzane boundary; and what affects the ~modificatian of the floodplain elevation and floodzone boundary will Dave an the existing and proposed facilifies, and properties surrounding the proposed development. As applicable, the developer's engineer shall determine the existing Base Flood Elevation contours` and illustrate the existing boundaries of the Floadplain anti flaadway for a 10fl-year storm event (commonly referred to as the "Base . Flood I :vent"} associated with Griffin Creek, an the construction plans submitted far the development. The drawings shall also indicate the revised Base f=lood l~ievafian contours and boundaries of the Floodplain and Floadway expet:ted to occur fallowing the completion of any development within the identified floodzone {also referred #a as the 'Area of Special Flood Hazard"}. .:~ .• Miller.Sstates PUD 7'errtntive.plcrn PTYD Slaff Report September 1 t?, 1998 Page 14 4, Roof drains and underdrains shat] not be direcf]y connecfed fa public sform drain lines, and snail drain to the sfreef. Discharge of fhese lines infa Griffin Cree]t is not allowed by fhe D~Q. 5, Any discharge poinfs of the sform wafer facilifies {afher (hart connection fo the NVE storm drainage co]]ecfian and conveyance systems shall be designed fo provide an aesfhefica]ly p]easing, useful, and low maintenance €acilify, #hat are designed to mifigafe erosion, damage, or . loss during a '] QO year storm evenf; and fhaf mifigafe fhe "aftracfive nuisance" hazards associated with fhese types of facilities. 6, Prior to Gify PWD construcfion plan review, t]ie Developer shall provide fhe Gify 1't1VD wifh a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and pro#i]e plots for sizing the SD sysfem, which shall incorporate fhe use of fhe City PWD's rainfall~ntensify curve, and Cify approved run- off coefficienfs, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficienfs, etc., fhaf are used in fhe engineering calculations. . 7, Storm drain pipe rnaferials shall be PVG, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, wifh wafer-tig]~f points. Provide cancrefe orsand-cement slurry encasement where required ]n areas of minimum cover. 8. ]f inlefslcatch basins are fo exceed ~.5 feet in depfh from fhe lip of fhe in]ef, then fhe inlefs and catch basins shall be designed to afford suitab]e "man" entry Into fhe inletslcatch basin for mainfenancelcleaning purposes. 9, Developer's engineer shat] provide hydro]agy and hydraulic ca]eulafions and flow line plots far private and public sform drains. P]of NGI~ on profile or provide a separafe profile drawing fhaf indicates fhe NGL on the profile. Pipes shou]d maintain cleaning velocity {minimum 2.t} feet per second} and have adequafe capacities wifhouf surcharging during the design storm. 1 g. The Developer may wish fo incorporate fhe use of a perforated SD sysfem, ]f so, fhen fhe perforated sfarm drain sysfem shall be designed fo have adequate eapacifies fo: ^ Gonvey the coliecfed groundwater and sform wafer wifh fhe minimum cleaning velocities and tvifhout surcharging fhe callectian and conveyance piping; and [µl Minimize sills, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native soils info ills SD sysfem. The potted l-]GL shall include both the groundwater infiltration, and the sform water run-off and run-on inflows into the SD system. ']`]. Maintain a minimum 0,2-fool drop between in]et and outlet pipe inverts in manholes and curb in]ets, un]ess f]ow-through ve]acifies during fhe design sfarm event exceed 3.0 feel per second {fps}. if flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps and fhe inlef.pipe is in relative]y direct {i.e. 'l80 ~ ~ degree} horizontal alignment wifh fhe outlet pipe, then as a minimum fhe pipe slope shall be mainfained through the base of the manhole ar curb inlet. if flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps, and there is other than relatively direci horizontal alignment between the in]ef and outlet pipes, them a minimum of a 0.1-€oof drop between inlet and ouflef pipe Inverts in manholes or curb inle# must be maintained. ~ botfam channel shall be formed in the manhole or curb in]ef base to mifigafe Transitional losses and enhance flow through fhe manhole or curb in]ef. ~~ Miller Estates PUII~ 7`entative Platy PF3'1) S`tafJ".Repnrl ,Se~rtember 1~ 1998 Page 9 StreetslTraf tic ~xisfing Improvements - Highway 99 - t-[ig[~way {Mayor ~,rferia4}. Current POW ~f ~ p' Wide, varying street width. Right of Way required: As required to incorporate accelerafionldeceleration lanes; Jurisdiction - C~DC)T. Marys Way and Nancy Avenue, Current Rt~W 5Q'-wide, 3~` wide Street Wirth, `[, Construction drawings for this Tentative Plan shat[ include a Street Cwigitting Plan in accordance with the requirements of the City PWD or as otherwise approved by rite City Administrator or his designee. The construction drawings shat! Include clear vision areas designed to meet the Guy's PWD Standards. 2, The Developer's engineer shalt, of the cast of the Developer, evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the driveway/street section designs to accommodate the expected [Dads {including fire equipment} fo be (raveled on these driveways, if a public street, then the City wilt design the required street section. Storm prainage, Irrigation improvements Existing Improvements - Griffin Creek across the eastern boundary of proposed development, Rogue River Valley irrigation district. potentially controls irrigation rights within fhe project area including conveyance of water in Griffin Creek. '[ . Developer's engineer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection, retention, and conveyance system {SR System) which provides far storm Wafer run-off from and runt-on onto fhe proposed development (either surface run-on or culvert or cr`eeklditch conveyance}, arty existing or suture developmenf on adjacent properties, conveyed storm drainage, ar surface wafer (tow, and any areas deert~ed by fhe City that wilt need to connect-into fhe proposed development's SD System. 2. Developer's engineer shall determine [pow SD system witl work during 't{~-year and 10th year flood events associated with Griffin Creek. [denfify the MGL in Griffin Greek during 14- and `t00- year storm event, and what affect it will have on the proposed storm drain system, System should be designed to adequately drain ~ O~year storm Without surcharging or should be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging, 3. During the design of the SD system, fire Developer's engineer shall consider the effect of the proposed improvements and structures with regard to fhe 'I OD-year bass flood event floodway and floodplain of Griffin Creek. The design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system {SD System} should provide for storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development {either surface run-on or culvert or creeklditch conveyance}; and that the majority of storm water from the site is collected and discharged downstream of fhe Scenic Avenue box culvert. The Developer and the Gity PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, - curve numbers, retardance, etc., fo be used in ftte engineering calculations. ~~ k , .h:tilter Estates PtTl7 Tentative 1'tarr PFYD Stafjlteport September I D,1998 Page 11 12. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-af-way ar anta r~eir~hbari€~c~ properties is unacceptable, 13, Plans which propose to include the discharge to Griffin Creek and any construction or modification within the floodway of Griffin Creek, shall be in compliance with DSL, ACC~E, C}DPW, DEQ, andlor City PWD has applicable guidelines and requirements and any applicable conditions and or approvals, of these regulatory agencies. Sanitary Sewer ~. A!I sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system ASS System} design, construction and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Caregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards, (Oregon Chapter, Sear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority (13CV5A}, and the City FWD Standards, where applicable. 2. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall Identity lateral stationing far construction of sewer laterals. 3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward the plans to BCVSA far completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Direcfor will approve the plans in final form. 4. All testing and video inspection of ]roes and manholes shall be lane in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Wafer System 1. The water system shall be designed fo provide the required fire flow demand capacities far the proposed facility, which meet l=ire District 3 requirements. Maximum spacing of fire hydrants shall I}e 300 feet. The wafer system shall:be of reinforced flow {"looped"} design. Water service lateral connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. 2. Developer shall comply with C7regan Nealth Division ~CC:~ND} and City requirements for backflow prevention. Site work, Grading, and Utility flans 1. Grading plans should have originallexisting grades and final grades plotted on fhe plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade confour lines are overlaid an tap of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations, ~~ .Mrttcr Estates PUD 7"entative Ptaxr PTYl~ Stn, ff.Re~art Septerraber IQ,.199~ .Wage 12 2. All s#ructures shall have roof drainst area drains, andlar crawl spaces with positive drainage away {rom the build'ar~g ors#rt~c#ure. 3. Provide City w's#h a u#ility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line lacatians, crossings, trans{armer Locations, valves, etc. 4. U#ility locations must be accurately included an the as-built drawings, or as a separate se# of drawings attached fo the as-built drawings. Rights a{ WayslEasernents 1. I{applicable, Developer shall provide a statement of 1Nater Rights (art a Gi#y approved farm}, for any of{ected properties. Par properties defertr~ined fo have water rights, the developer will coordinate with the S#ate ttyatermasfer the re-allacatiort of any waters attached to lands na longer irrigable as a result of the proposed develapmenf. ~~ .Miller ,Estates PUL> ?'entcrtive 1'lars PFYl7 Staff.Repc~rt ,Tune .TS`h, 20Q2 Page 2 the fire lane to facilitate pedestrian traffic access to Nancy Avenue. If the developer is proposing to make these access ways private streets, then the fallowing minimum vehicular traffic paved access widths {exclud%ng the portion of Qrth Drive from the connection to Highway 99 to Marian Avenue} would be recommended: Private Sfreets: The City's approved private street widths range between 24-Foot curb to curb width, with Q.5 foot curbs an bath sides of the street equaling 2Swfeet of total width; to 29-fact curb to curb width with 4. S foot curbs on math sides of the street far a total width of ~Q-feet. No parking on streets permitted, A minimum 25-foot width {24-foot width garb-to-curb with curbing} with na street parking permitted is recommended. Allowances would need to be made to provide for Visitor panting. Public Streets. The City is utilizing a new "Residential Lane" standard, Which consists of the following: A 2 S-foal-wide traveled section, with a 2 percent crown Standard curb and getters A 2-foal-wide strip located behind the curb for installation of water meter service box Requires a ~(3-foot-Wide right-of--way. Street parking not allowed on residential lanes. However, these Residential Lanes are designed to accommodate access to a maximum of 14 dwelling units, and are intended to be used for "in-fill" type projects only, The proposed project is somewhat of an "in-fill" type project, but has a significantly greater number of dwelling units {~8} than tl~e planned use of the Residential Lane. If a residential Lane were determined not to be appropriate for this development, then a standard local street would be required, which has a 5fl-ft}at right-of--way and a curb-ta-curb width of 3b feet. Allowa~~ces would need to be made to provide for visitor parking. 3, Private Sidewalks: The City PWD is recommending that a minimum 5-foot wide sidewalk section {with a suitable public ingress and egress easement requirement} be provided overlying tl~e public-utility-easement or partitioned "spaces" and/ar Tats to facilitate pedestrian traffic {if the streets are to be private streets ar Residential Lanes}, on at least one side of the street or lane. Tl~e sidewalk would be installed as part of the development and will be maintained by the property owner, similar to the City`s current ordinance requirement. ~. Landscape Plan/Buffer: A suitable landscape plan for the required landscape buffer ~,,. ~~ Miller Estates 1'Ut) 7"entative F'Inn P~3TL7 S"taffRepart .~ur2e l8'h 2~~2 alang.Highway 99 shall be prepared and submitted to the City far review at~d approval. Once approved, tl~e landscape plan shall be implemented and maintained far the initial one-year period {from the date of acceptance by the City PWD by the Developer at the Developer's expense. At a minimum, the landscape plan shall include provision far grass and street trees, The street trees shall be installed along the meandering sidewalk, in accordance with the City's draft standards, and 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 shat( be compatible with the overhead paver lines in this area and shall be of a minimum 1-1I2 Inch caliper size. The landscape buffer shall be designed with an autart~ated irrigation system that is operated utilizing AC paver far the system's controls. it is the Department of Public Works opinion fhat fhis requiremenf he cortaplefed prior fo tlnai puffing of Miller Esfafes Phase Il. ~. Sform Drains a /nfrasfrucfure: Tl~e developer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection and conveyance system which provides for run-aff from and rug-an auto the proposed development, any future development an adjacent properties, and any areas deemed by the City that will need to tie-into the proposed development's storm water caliection and conveyance system {i.e. tax lots to the south of the proposed development). It is our understanding that the storm drainage infrastructure will be a public system, operated and maintained by the City, Suitable easements far storm drainage infrastructure will need to be dedicated to the City for alignment, canstructlon, and maintenance of the necessary storm drainage infrastructure, A suitable system will need to be designed for a minimum I4-year storm event, designed to the City's Public Works Department`s Standard Specifications and Details {PWD Standards}, ar as otherwise appraved by the City Administrator ar his designee. Ta aide in the reduction of flooding problems associated with Griffin Creek, City PWD is recommending that the Developer be required to discharge the majority, if not all, of the storm water run-aff from this development rota the storm drainage infrastructure stub-out of the Na~-th Valley Estates {1•IVE} development {between lots 23 and 22 of NVE}. b, f2ighfs-of -Way and Easemenfs. Provide dedication for expansion of the right-af way along Highway 99 as may be needed to afford the requirements of C}D(~T and the City PWD. Provide suitable and acceptable easements for any public works {PW} infrastructure located outside the public right-af--way; minimum easement widths are 1 S- feet for one infrastructure utility; and a minimum of 24 feet for up to three Infrastructure utilities. A separate 1(}-foot minimum width public utilities easement {P.Ei.E.} should also be required outside the Highway 99 right of way, and an both side of the proposed development's streets, for utility installation, The City PWD Is aisa requesting the requirement to grant the City a storm drainage ~~ Miller Esfaies PU1~ 7'erstnfive flan PJYD StaffRepart September 10, 1998 Page 4 easement in the open space area on the east side of the development, east of Griffin Creek, far inclusion of the ditch and access banks associated with the Comet Way storm drainage discharge ditch, There may already be att easement recorded in this area for tl~e former stomp drain pipe alignment, but the flood of ~ 997 necessitated the construction of a storm drainage ditch which may be located outside any existing easement, All City of Central Point l;asements shall consist of a minimum section of 6-inches of (~" shale} 4-inches of {3!4" minas}, graded and compacted to create a drivable surface. 7, Greek Sefback Requirerrtenfs: Creek setback requirements {particularly CPMC 17.bf}.a9d E.} may make tl~e fencing of the RV storage lot un-buildable due to setback requirements. The City will require a maintenance access easet~~ent and a 2~-faot maintenance access road as indicated in the creek setback requirements of the City's municipal code. This access road would also provide access to BGVSA's facilities. 8. Traffic Barrier Requiremenf: A suitable permanent traffic barrier and emergency vehicle gated access shall be designed and submitted for City PWD and Dire District No. " review and approval, to be placed at the terminus of hlancyrs ~tVay, This is for emergency access only, and shall not be utilized for construction or regular access, I+urthermore, a traffic termination barrier at the end of Mary's Way will be mandatary. 9, Flood Sfudy & Flood Plain Elevafr'©ns: The entire Miller l;states Phase Il development is located in the I C?U-year flood plain. Base flood elevations Dave been determined for the subject properties. However, currently the federal Imergency Management Agency {1~EMA) is updating the flood plain in relation to Griffin Creek, As a result of this study the existing #lood plain and base flood elevations are subject to change. 1 t7. Reimbcrrsemeraf: The Public darks Department recommends the developer be required to fully reimburse tl~e Developers of North Valley estates the az~~ounts set Earth for both Storm brain 8~ Water infrastructure, i~~ floe Miller estates Phase l Staff Reports before further development is considered. ~~ ~~iller ~a'tnles PILL} 1'etttative Platt Pll'l} StafJ'Report Septensber 1 D, 1998 Page S ~~~~~)€. I . All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the I'ianning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, andlor 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 6y 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 {DEW}, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality {DFQ}. Oregon Division of State lands {DSI.}, u.S. Army Corps of Engineers {AC©E}, affected irrigation districts, and C>DCiT. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide tl~e 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-fine" changes to final approved construction plans that identify the locations and or elevations has appropriate} of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, Inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and fire~hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet locations; street light locations; other below grade utility line locations and depths; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy {on Mylar°}, or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD° compatible drawing electronic file to tl~e City at col~~pletion 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 bench~l~arks, 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. S. 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. ~~ ~~itTer .states PUD 7`entatr"ve 1'Tau PF~'1? Staff lfeport September 10, 1998 Page ~ ~. Easements far City infrastructure {i,e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]} should be a minimum of 3 5-feet wide, and should not spilt lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.I~I.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 [orated within an easement, then a minimum of 2d-foot width should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC~Rs need a statement, which should dearly 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 ronstrurtian plans for the proposed Improvements, the fallowing should be submitted: A copy of written approval from Eire 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 blacks should be completed an the plans. A copy of written approval from C}D JT regarding Highway 99 improvements {as applicable}. $. 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 eor~structian plan design and submittal for final approval. 9. C>verhead power lines. if applicable, roordir~ate efforts with Pacific Power and light, [.15 West, and TCl 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 tl~e proposed . development. All agreements and costs associated with the ronverslan of these facilities Pram overhead to underground facilities shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. 14. 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 hari~ontaily and vertically} on the construction plans and as- bulit drawings. - f 1. The Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide to tl~e Public tNorks Department a ,~ ... Muter Estates PtID Tentative Plan PYYD StafJ"Repart Septerr:ber 1~1, 1998 Page 7 drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced o€~ Mylar° and i€~ an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD° format. The Final Plat small 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-I€ne" changes noted €n the construction "as- builts", at the discretion of the City Administrator or his designee. ~ 2. If the proposed development places structures within the I E}©-year floodzone of Griffin Creek, the Developer's engineer will be required to explain and provide detail as to what affect the placement of these structures will have on the floodzone; what affect it will nave on the lloodplain elevation and floodzone boundary; and what affects the modification of the floodplain elevation and floodzone bor€ndary will have on tl~e existing and proposed facilifiies, and properties surrounding the proposed development. As applicable, the Developer's engineer shall determine the existing Base Flood Elevation contot€rs and illustrate the existing boundaries of the Floodplain and floodway fora 1 OQ-year storn~ event {commonly referred to as the "Base Flood Event") associated with Griffin Creek, on the construction plans submitted for tl~e development. The drawings shall also indicate the revised Base Flood Elevation contours and boundaries of the Floodplain and Floodway expected to occur following the completion of any development within the identified floodzone {also referred to as the 'Area of Special Flood Hazard"}. Streets/Traffic Existing Improvements -Mary's VJay and Nancy Avenue. Current RC7W S4'-wide, ~6'-wide street width. ] . 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 shat[ include clear vision areas designed to meet the City's Pt~tD Standards. 2. The Developer's engineer shall, at the cost of the Developer, evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the drivewaylstreet section designs to accommodate the expected loads {including fire equipment) to be traveled on these driveways, If a public street, then the City will design the required street section. Starn~ Drainage, Irrigatio~~ Improvements Existing Improvements - Griffin Creek across the eastern boundary of proposed development, Rogue River Valley Irrigation District potentially controls ~~ filter Fstntes PU13 T`entatitJe 1'tan PFYD .S'iaf~'12epvrt September 10, 1998 Page S irrigation rights within the project area including coctveya~ice of water in Griffin Creek. I . Developer's engineer shat( 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 will need to connect~into the proposed development's SD System. 2. Developer's engineer shah determine how SD system will Work during I O~year and I Ofl- year flood events associated with Griffin Creels. Identify the HGI. in Griffin Creek during I fl- and I OO-year storm event, and what affect it will Dave an the proposed storm drain system, System should be designed to adequately drain I U•year storm without surcharging or should be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging. 3. During the design of the SD system, the Developer's engineer shall consider the effect of the proposed improvements and structures with regard to the IOO-year base #iood event floodway and fioodplain of Griffin Creek. The design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system {SD System} should provide for storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development {either surface run-on or culvert or creeklditcl~ conveyance}; and that the majority of storm water from the site is collected and discharged downstream of the Scenic Avenue box culvert. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-tiff coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to be used in the engineering calculations. 4, Roof drains and under drains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain to the street, Discharge of these lines into Griffin Creek is not allowed by the DPQ. 5. Any discharge points of the storm water facilities {other than connection to the NVIv storm drainage collection and conveyance system} shat( be designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing, useful, and low maintenance facility, that are designed to mitigate erosion, damage, or loss during a IOU year storm event; and that mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these types of faculties. ~. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PVJD 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. 7. Storm drai~~pipe materials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with watertight ~~ Afiller estates PUI.~ Tentative flan P33'D Staff Report September I0, 1998 Page 9 joints, Provide concrete arsnnd-cement slurry encaset~~ent where required in areas of minimum cover. 8, If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet [n depth from the lip of t€~e inlet, then the inlets and catch basins shaft be designed to afford suitable "mart" entr}r into the inlets/catch basin for maintenance/cleaning purposes. 9. Developer's engineer shaft provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots far private and public storm drains. Plot t-iGL on profile or provide a separate profile drawing that indicates the NGL on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleaning velocity (minimum 2.C} feet per second} and have adequate capacities witl~aut surcharging during the design storn~, 1 fl. The Developer may wish to Incorporate the use of a perforated SD system, if so, then the perforated storm drain system shall be designed to have adequate capacities to. Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with the minimum cleaning velocities and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and Minimize silts, Sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native soils Into the SD system. The plotted NGL shad include both the groundwater Infiltration, and the storm water run- off and run-an inflows Into the SD system. ~ 1. Maintain a minimum 4.2-fact drop between Inlet and outlet pipe inverts In manholes and curb inlets, unless flow-through velocities during the design storm event exceed 3.t3 feet per second {fps. if flaw velocities exceed 3.C? fps and tl~e inlet pipe Is in relatively direct {i.e. 1803 a- ~ degrees horizontal alignment with the outlet pipe, then as a minimum tl~e pipe stage shall be t~~aintained through the base of the manhole or curb inlet. if flaw velocities exceed 3.fl fps, and there is other than relatively direct horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, then a minimum of a O.l-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 inlet base to mitigate transitional tosses and enhance flaw through the manhole or curb inlet. 12. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto tl~e public rights-of way or onto neighboring properties Is unacceptable. 13', If determined applicable by a City of Central Point representative, a hydrologist will be consulted to determine the nature of existing groundwater conditions and any consequences that may occur as a result of the proposed development. ~~ .1~Iiller Ih'rtates PUL) 2"errtative flan Pti!!? Staff.Report September I0, 1998 Page 10 13. Plans, which propose to inclctde the discharge to Griffin Creek and any construction or modification within the floodway of Griffin Creek, shall be in compliance with DSL, ACC?F, C>DFW, DBQ, and/or City PWD {as applicable} guidelines and requirements and any applicable conditions and or approvals, o€ these regulatory agencies. Sanitary Sewer 1. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system {SS System} design, construction and testing shall con€orm to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DFQ 1994 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {BCVSA}, and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. .~. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer Laterals. 3. The City upon completion of initial construction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward the plans to BCVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, completion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer`s engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the construction plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 4. AIL testing and video inspection o€ lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shall provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, TV reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System T , `The water system shall be designed to provide the required fire flow demand capacities for tl~e proposed facility, which meet Fire District 3 requirements. Maxin3una spacing of fire hydrants shall be 3D© feet. The water system sl}ail be of reinforced flow {"looped"} design. Water service lateral connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. 2. Developer shall comply with Oregon Health Division {~3ND} and City requirements for backflow prevention. Site workr Cradrng, and C.Itility Piazis 1. Grading plans should have originaUexisting grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade ~a Miller estates Pt3D Tentative Plan Pt~D Staff `Report $epternber 1(?, 1998 Page II contour Tines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier Tine width and solid. Contour Imes silou[d be labeled with elevations. 2. Ail structures shall have roof drains, area drains, a~~d/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building or structure. 3'. Provide City with a utility plan approved by each utility company, which reflects all utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc. 4. l.~tiiity 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 Wayst~asemezxts ] . If applicable, Developer shah provide a Statement of Water Rights ion 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. ~ ~-. "~xlxibit ~7" i2ECt~Ml1'~I~I~Ii3E~ P~A.I'wII~I~S~'G D~PAI~TMLN"~` CC?l~'bI'~'faNS ©~ APPZ2t~VAL 1. A. suitable Ianclscape and iz-z~igation plan. must be szzbzzzi##ecl, accepted, and constructed for area bordering l~igh~vay 9~ prior to Phase LI being plattccl, ,~. landscaping plan for Griffin Creek needs #o be submitted sho~vizzg the placemen# of a "to#-lot" and adezlt reereatiozz areas. 2. A parking azzd fencing plan must be submitted to the City prior to the cozzstzlzction of the RV storage area. 3. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes, azzd lies#rictions (CC~R's} or any comparable agreement governing the use, nzaizz#ezzance azzd cozz#inued pro#ec#ion of the PC1D as part of the fizzal developrrzezzt plan. 4. ~ .parking plan shall be prepared and szzbmi#ted #o City Staffpz-ior #o recording of the Final Plat. The parking plan shall include locations for visi#or parking, striping arzd circulation plan for RV parking, and the no parking pones. 5. The applicant zzzust zzzeet all of the condi#iozzs of approval set for#Iz in the Public ~rVorks Staff Repoz~t. G.ti'lanningl9${l5 I mi I1er2.wpd V PZ1ANNfNG DEPA1tT11r11~~NZ' S`1'AF'~j ~E~t~~T MEETJI`~G DATE: July 2, 2442 f Cozxtinucd frarn Juzxc 4tlx) T4: Central Point Plazxning Caznmission l~'Rf}IY.C: Ken Gerschler, Caxxurzunity Plazxner ~-[3~3TECT: Variarzce from fence requirernecxts at G53 Meada~,vl~raok give ~372W01BC Tax Lat 9300). Ar3~licazz#: Dazx and Kay 13erzyzxxazx 3877 Arrowhead Drive Medford, Oregon 97544 Suxnrrzaz-y: This item was continued by the Planzxing Coznmissiozx olx belxalf ofthe J3ez',ymans' ~vha had a family eznergezxy. The applicazxt wishes to vazy from fence requirements in artier to construct a ~ foot high fence in a side yard setback. The subject parcel is zoned R-l, Residential Single-Farz~ily. Auflzori CPMC 1.24,424 vests the Planzxing Coznznission witlx the authority to review and decide , without a public hearing, any application for a fence variazce. Review is beizzg perfornxed in aceordazxce with CPMC 1.24.054. A livable La~v: CPMC 15.24.044 et seq. _ Peirce height an Lots - CPMC 15.20.480 et seq. --Fence Variances CPMC 1'7,20,010 et seq. - R-1, Residential Sizxgle-Family Disfrzct Disczzssion• The Applicants decided to request this fence variance and lxas provided their rationale as part of tlxe attaclxed application and exhibits. C.Ph~C,S`ectiorrs .15.2f?.11511 states tTrtrt rrv fence sTzrrll be Iriglrer flrtrrr three arrrl orre hcrlf feet zs~itlrin flre re~rrirerl setback crr•err. ,~ec~rresfs for fence xjcrrinrrces slrnll be rnrrde by crlJ~rlictrfiorr . . . rrnd slicrll be reviervecl ixr trcccrr•clcxrrce fviflr GYrapter ~,2~ ~ivhr'clr irrualx~es ,~'larrrring ~'orrrrrrissiarr errrrsirler•crtiarr }vitlrorrf cr~ublic hetrrirrg~. Dan and Kay Benyrnan are requesting that the Planzzizxg Caznznissian grant a variance frozxx tlxe 3 lz foot Ixeight requireznezxt far a portiazx of a proposed fence located tivithin a side yard setback. The portion afthe fence that would exceed tlxe tlxree and one half foot height is located alazxg the wes#erly property line {refer to Attachzzxent D} of the 9,805 square foot lat. Five neighbors surrounding tlxe parcel have signed a petition requestizg that tlxe fence be constructed as proposed by tlxe applicants. { Attaclxment E). ~~ The applicants have provided findings of fact far consideration by tl~e Cozn~nissian {Attacl~n~eilt "C"). Staffhas read the findings which appear to have extensive research of fezzes height regulations in neighboring communities. ~irhile modifications to the existing Cade may be required to adjust the fence ordinance , this is not the appropriate time to address the issue since these changes would require extensive review by the City Council at publicly noticed meetings combined with a passible pubic vote. For this application, the Planning Cozxzzrzission is tasked with applying the acknowledged fence height regulations and all ofthe required findings listed in the code must be met for a variance to be granted. if findings could be made for approval, the applicants could be allowed to canstnzct the fence at six feet in the side yard area. Zf findings could z~ot be made, the applicant would need to construct the fence to code. The applicants have compiled the enclosed infozxnatian to assist the Plazuzing Camzrzissian in detenrzining that their parcel is unique and needs a variance from the existizzg code. They perceive that the City has established a precedence in approvizzg two variance requests during the past 2 years on similar lots. At 2422 St. Tames Way, a variance was granted by the City Council when. a denial decisiozx by the Planning Commission was overturned and approved by Cozzncil. Al€hougli the City Council agreed in principle tc, the Planning Commission findings, they also found that the applicants had not received adequate notice of their appeal rights as described in the code and granted the YarlanCe. City Couzzeil concurred with a T'larzzxzng Commission denial far another fence ~=ariance at 299 C7akview .Avenue.lvTpon subsequent xeview, the Council reversed their pasi€ion and approved a rrzodified site plan, which granted the variance to canstnzct a six foot high fence within 4 112 feet of the property line in a side yard setback. Not all fence variance requests are approved. The owners ofproperty at S43 Mitchell Way were denied a variance fora previously constructed six foot high fence whiel~ vas located in a side yard setback. F`izzciiztgs of lt`act & Conchzsions of La~v A variance zxzay be granted if fzndiz~igs are made as follows: l .The stricf application of tl~ie provisions would result iz~ urzxzeccssazy laardslup; or The strict application of the t3rdinazace for this applicationz ~~rotzld zzot appear to create azx rzxxnecessary hardship on the applieazat. 2. 'f`he following considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the following considerations do not apply to the requested application. a. The variance will provide advantages to tl~ie neighborhood or the city, ~. ~'`i~'~~ l~i~;ill)I11~.~ ltll~'E =;i<a1c~T <I l)c{its~~ll pia ~,lll)l),)rt I)l~ ~~~,tl~;f~ i~ctill;; il!c #~c_rlce ~`5 ~% ~~, ~~~~€)lx)st~~~. ,illt~I~ f[~4~.w Oi°1'sf~~ c glzai allc sty l~ctnf~i° l~x)la rlil~f~l° <:~ .~ ~~ ~~~){a t' lli'x~.'},t T~. "l;~hc ~ It i~)Il~:c ~~~ill t~ro~, i~i~ 1>c,~:ut~ Iica~i~)Il 9t) tL ~ llci; l)~)l l~,{3<~tl t~)1' tl;c cii}~~ `~`h~~ 1t3~=tt~13>t t~~ il~c~ ~i:~~~~c -I1:~~, 3~I)s ~tt~ces~>~gr~ilr,' ~)~~o5-i~1c° .~~~ti~ ;itit~if~tlr'na1 ~;€~,it~S~9ic~tiU~1 fit, tl~c, a~~~i~l~hrai~lar~B~~II ~3~° czf~', ll~~~~~~~~~~~~' ~af~sF+lll~{)I~1, l~<i~c. sarlit's~ ~t lletifit)t~ to ~lcll~t~llsfx-I~te fll;~~ Plat~.y ~IZ~e a~.c~cl)fil~~` c)t tlic. l31'o~)~)sctl t~cnrr,~ l~~~ir;l~t ~sil~l lt!cli~«I~. ~.'I'11c~~iri<u;cu ~,',-i11 pl`c)vicl; ><If:~t~y~ to the ~l~:i,lalx)1~1:~~<~cl <~,~ ialt~ city, ~'~%lltle file i~lii~~~sl~;ed ~~~s~l°e 1~hi<,lit ~~~{l~tl~l €lot t~~ce:>s<l~~ily ~~~~o~,~itle ~t~~titiol~,~l 5,~1't~4~~ t.a) t~l~ a~€ci<,,ill)~)~~la~7t)tlg ii ~~'v~~l~l alla~~' llle <~~)l)lic~~rat a ,<,I-ci3t{~~- ~~t~li~;c. tsl's~~c~!~_~~i(~~ fI> I:s~~~~i)~;~ s"i~)t'0~)0-5t'.(~ $15'N1?,1II11T1~r ~3f,)0~ s1-f7[1] 1)CCOllillli~ ;x,11 I11~1~I?CfI`.`C; 11t€14 hiI1CC'> t~. ~~ ~"'ITS::^~IC.e S''Tl~ l)rCl~'lllt ~)1i)ti i ;i+:?I1 ti) lllc I1+ ~'il~'ti~IiiOl~(l Ol' ll1C. C,IL`T. ~~1 iltcl-e~T~~etl fellee llei~llV 'lv~ll lilcels' ~t~ l1 T'{~~'it~e..~d~litinTl~li l1T~c)fec:ii~11T f« fl~~ ~~. t1c3~;111>~3rlTOtltl ~~~l~~e ~~ G ~°{~t)t la~sl1 ~c~1cc >1s ~>hl)c~scaC tt~ ~; ~ ~, 1~c~11t ~'~~IIE;t:, h~'or'illl:~ ;~ h~:if?.T~ 1r,~1~~~i~~1~. f. ~'~3{: 1' :1I<?.Itl <; ~Vlll Il{)t I~a~"i; ~1I1V I:ii~Tf'.~SL J,J1'tr)~i t~ 1l~}+?21 I~1C IlC;1Cj~.~)t>1~'..?0(~. ht:i~lihc~T~i111; ll~'ol~cr'fy <~titi~l~el~g ~'«~"c s111~T11itteti :a lx~tifit,ll i11 f~~r"~~T- cll`<llltl~r~ilr~; Elie ~:~.T1c.t: ic) llc ~~o~~stt~lactcll at ti fief i1~T 111.ar;l~f.'I'lle l>rt>hose-!l l"c11ce ~ ~lc~t loc;ltetl ~~~~tllin ille 1'i~111T1 cle<i1~E~z~cc a'~t~:~ ~lt<11° file i11te~~scctiotl tai i~lc~sl~i{~1~'hrut)h 3)r.-z~"~ ,iricl ~4:iotaTltailT r~,~,~cT1~T~. f.'I'f~c~t~l~rl i;x,e~;'ill. Titi;ize~?rc,i;c~,i~1=,ilhir; litcintentatxd~aurpc~sec~f~ezc~t~~ ~ii;t;ict, ~4~,'l~o~l ~~cl.cc~s like ills. ol.e c1~~tsiT-1lcfed l~~" file Ill)l~~li.at~~;1.-e ct?~r1t1TO"lal~" ct~nsfriT~fe~ iIl . rc~.~i~lt°nflal ~IC~i;~t1111i1~11ot~Tls ~r~~i,llally-co~nlaltirr~~ith fhe rcl~uil~ecl scfl)~IC:hs. j ~1` 11~)l',iiC.<.:]{ ~1,.. t1l;llllll;Cj liI?tilii; 1~~ (t?1..`;ll~~,~1!lll)11 ~)~jitC' {~'!);lill~.,..?ii,l t A~lt;:~ii:ll(')# {.~~. 9 s A l R ~ r; V 1 t '' l I.1F'[acrrsin~l(}2028,wg~d Reeozzzrnenciation: Staff xecon~znends that the Plazzning Commission take one of the follo~vizzg actions: Approve the fence vaz~ance application bascti on the fzndings of fact contained in tizc record and s~zbject to tine xecomnxended conditions of approval, or 2. deny fine pxoposed Variance application; or 3. Contizkue the xevie~v .for the Variance applzcatiozz at tl~e discretion of the Commission. ~.ttactzzneztts: A. Application for Fence Variance l3. Notice cif Meeting C. Applzcant's Findings of Pact ~. Applicant's Site Plan showing fence height E. Correspondence froze neighboxs }~:1~'Ianni ng10242 &.~vpd A~'~'~~C.A.'~'~O~ ~`QR ~~~~~ ~AR~ANC~ G'l:t'~'CX''C~11~`fif~l Tr.-i,~r„ nr ~_snr:x~.~ r~.,~~,x~,~ux~.~. ~~~--~r~~~ ~ `~` . .. - ~ CI i Y C}r~ C~NI't~1~ t'OI~T . Planxzizx ~~ D~ z`tme~xt~ o.~r~ s~rn z.n 1. APPL~CA~'.~' ~I~'(JR.MAT~O~ ~ .. Narrze: _ ~. t1 ~--- ~~.~. Address: `~`~`-7~ r`v= City: ~'~~ ~r~2=~~~:._,._~ Telephone: Busi s ~. AGENT ~tFOR1VZA'~'~ON ~Nazna: Address: City; Mate: ~ dip Code: Residence: Telephone: Iw3 us i nes s: 3.O~1~ER Off' RECORD (A#tach Separate Shut zf I~are'~'haz~ One} Name: ~ca...~~ ~~~ ..._ ~ ~.-c.°c~_x~.~ Address: City. Mate: .tip Code: Telephone: i3usixxess: Residence: 4. PROJECT DESCRIp"~`ION To~~vnship: ~ i IZ.ange: <%' ~.~ Secfion; {~~~.. Tax Lot{s): ~ ~ ~~ Address: 5.~ ~ ~ ~- , ~`~" ~ 2-..''~ Zoning District: - ~ -- Total Acreage: _ <~~~X ,'~~ ~ ~~ 4- 4 - ~ General Description of V 'ante: ~~~-~~~ ~ t - f ~~~-~--~Y~~~. c>'V-~-.- ~.~e .nC~.~- '~"?r7~1~ 1. ~~-n. 4 A--.-. ~ l i ~~ C x~-r-,~ s_ xx. Current Fee Schedule. '~~ ~f Plo# Flan ~: Elevations Drawn #o Scale {I O se#s). Cane Copy of a Reduced 'lot Plan ~. Fleva#iozxs (S'l2" x l 1 "}. . ~ 'Writtezx authority from Property C,~tivner if Agezxt in application process. ,tx~Findings ~Addressing Criteria in Sectiozx I5,20.t~$0 ofthe Cezx#ral Paint Muzxicipal Code} P,egal Description of the Property. r`~~~This Application Foz~ ~,,~ Applicafion Fee (See G. ~ Ir~~Rl~l3~' STATIC TI~A.T'l:`I~E ~.<ACT~ I <'LATEI~ SST T.~11 AI3C~`~~ ArPMCATIrClI~ ANTS Tire Iv'LANS AI~I~.Dt~CUMI~,NTS SUI3MZTTED ~~~"4'4'Z'TI-~ A.lt~ T RU~7 C{7Tt:R:ECT A2tA ACCRA Z"~ 'S'C) .~ ~:-~~ 3.3;~,Sx' C}~.j IYZ~r x~raw~~~~~c. I certify thaf I aixx #Ixe: Property C}iirncr or ~ Agent of tl}e U~vner of #lxe proposed project site. ~ t ...._W_'....__... ~~ - r~ c~ S#atc: ~~---- Zip Code: `~' 1,~ ~~ Residence: '~...~--~- ~ ^ ~t ~ U~XC~ U~ ~'~~C~~IIg date of ~Io#zce: may ~.~, 2~4~ ~~ .~a.L~,11T1V.1~.~~` .L?.~`.P.A~.1~'..r~ ~.'.~T~' Tarrx IIuznp}xrey, ~IIC£' PI~nning Uiz-ec€.oz- Kern Gerschl~r Caznznunif.y Plaz~zner 2~lat.t Sarrzit,ora Caxxtrnurxity Plnz~zzer Dave ~rkr~ns Plan.rzing 'I`cetrniciarz Meeting Date: 1~uzxe 4, .2002 'I"izne: 7.00 p.rrz. (Approxizxxafe} Place: Central Point City Fall 155 South. Second Sireef Central Poinf, Oregon ItiIATURG flF MEETING -~~~~~ City ~~ f~ ~,~~' a ~~:~ui:~t: . ~~~~~ ~~:``'~~~~~3, xis ., k~aziriizt~`3~e~ai=~en't I3eginzxing at tlxe above time and place, tlxe Central Point Planning Conrznxission x~rill review an request to vary from tlxe fence requirezxxenis of tlxe Central Point Municipal Cade at 653 Meadowbrook Drive. 'I'lzis parcel is located in a 1Z-1-8, Residential Sizxgle-Eaznily galling District ozx Jacl~sozx County ,~.ssesszxxezxt Plat 37 2t~j OII3C, Tai: Lot 9300. Tile Cczxtral Point Plazxzzir~g Corrzzxxissiaz~ is beizxg asl;.ed i1` porfiozzs of a proposed fence can be cozxsfructed at a Ixeigl~t of six feet in a side yard setbaclti wlxere the Cade allows a zzxa~izzxuFZx lxeiglzf of 42 izzclxes..~.t tlxe zxxeetizlg, the Cozxxzzxissiozx will re~tie~v ilxe docuzxzezztafiozz sul~zxxitted by the alxplicazxt azxd ~~~ll decide wlxetlxer or zxot to grazxt flxe lrariazxce. Azxy Ixarty aggrieved by the decision ofilxe Plazxzxing Cozzxzxxission zxxay request review ofsuclx actiorx b}r tlxe City Couzxcil. Such a request must be filed in writing to tlxe City Adnxinistrafor no zx7ore tlxazx seven (7}days after a zzotifzcatiorz ofilie decisionx is givezx to tlxose parfies whpzxx provided cczzxx.nxezxts to tine Plazuxing Corrzzrzissiozx. A decision by the Plazxnizxg Conxnxissian could be affzrnxed by ilxe City Council at tlxe zxe~t regularly sclxeduled meeting if a request for review is not received witlxzzz the sevezx (7}day request period. The Central Point Cit~r Council reserves tlxe riglxt to approve, deny or zxxodif~r a request for a fezxce variazxce. ~~ ,. 4 ~~1::ST,t~tliCt.Illi't~l:i~t)1''( !T ~Sil,,,,'fjQ;I,f111]~.[1~i~)f,s~~;~)(?~l~G:{~,:'(1fr.. ~'C1131i.tE~PlrClit,'i~~(7'a,~I~ill,il ~, A~15 ~?"i"2iC>IlIT2tL'I(.S~f.E~~#'IC,I)ITlitl~,f?flilt?'(~ii11~1~,F1.~)O~'C 11Ii;-lltlOl)C~~~IlI1.C~il~~iCi~CC1.,.i)illl;t ~, ,;il~)317IZ ,~ ` 1;'fIf~C71 ~l3SlTY11L~%lfi (17~ 1'Ilall~ t.ll C~OSt: Q~~f~i', (llCx;~llitr >C.(1L'CtIIIC(~ ~(~~ ~11 ,S~C~IL"1"y ,CRIIt, ~ i) ~,? . r ,., ~ - . ~, ~)5'l~tli~Ll. GC3?I1[i]~Ilf.`i JIiiI j' ~]C ;iC3l.t IIl i1llYililCC C)i~ f li, ]i,CGtlllf', tC? ~,Cllfl~;: ~QIIIt ~~I~~' ~~I' r j)`) ~c:)lltjl ~CCC):1~~ rlrccf; f~`t:zatr~:1 ~'c~Illf, f)i'.'l7><?,?. 15.,11:,.`i ~'r'~1lC~~;. I11:1~' ~'iC)~`](~<, ~~1:, 2~:1:>IS 1~VC <;;l <1~i~7i';.i (?I1111i~ elllti:-I„ ,^,~l~ii~ ~?'' 1iliS:i~ j'JI7l-I f<) ~~;. t~?;~?L:Ilt](?i1 (?1 t~l , G'JlilillCilt ~1CIlOi~ 11;?(:~ij I<~1~~'t1'h. ~'~Ily' tt-;~t1L11G1i} Ali;:~ i4'f1t1C11 CC?I~.1I:1:-I,t:> i11X)lif t~ll. (~:,C1.`>!J;I; {i~,,l.I;~?-tl ;l')O~'t; ~4Yl~i ]1~'CCI t0 ~?I~ s~L3<<,~:~~ f0 ji1C' t)Th~)OS~iz Il[.If ,~iSOli~i~ i:, `rSi~lf;,)<~ C~CI?i'i}' ~` tiiC: l.~l:.Ilillil~; ~'031iI])1;;;iI1)Il. ~~ C~~~~I,_, c>f~h1L c~I,;:_Ilc~. Ielictl u~;tJ,1 i~,v' tl~c ~l~?~lli:.<~n~ I~Ir~ a~ri,i!~~L)l~~ it?r ~1111)lic zc~'i:;~r. of t;it~' t , ~.~I'il~j ~~5 ~Gt7tI1 ~~C'GO[1C~ ~~I~i'-C,t~ ~.~(?IifITi1 IrC)lt1i~ ~.~~ 'L;<:351,. ~,O~~r~,~; O~~ti~ o~ILl`^, c :~.? <il'i31_~:1~.?LG Itw F ,~. 7'C>.' sTC~i~itlOl.:'~ lllll7',j~1it1C3I1~ tILC ~>li~)~1t% Il.<lYr~ C-(1.,(?~:l, tf? ; a.~~Ij1P:1l1~; ~ )i`~})~.I~212f:Tli ili t~)`,t ~~ ~)~•'~- ~a21 ext. 2~2. _, .. ~JJ~ ~{)11~~1 C*ti'.4)I' ~ ~.riCt'Ls~ ~J {.,+ I1;fF'.i a'l?:Iitry C?Ii 7 ~~ ; ~(~.^ ~~ Ci(r"~-~~ ~~i ~_~_, _---w----- l -~ rzrsti eve west address ttze City's issues xznd conccros: ~ ~ ~ «~- ~ j~ ti1~ 1. TI'arrld the ~~arianee rovide advanftr~cs fo the nei~}rharhaarl or C'it "Yes. Tire City already allows a 4~" fence an #Ize side property lizze. Afl~cr the fool is izzsfalted, this slzartcr fence ~voczld xncet city code, but could present a grcatcr pofccztial Izazard bccazzse of et~zsy access to tlzc Iraol frazzz clzitdrezt in the rzeighbarizoad. Slzozzld the fence be alla~vcd to bs placcil an tlzc property Izzze at the s"rx foot height, this tvauld provide a safer barz~ier, izz addition to pravidi.nzr mare tariv~acy for our family. Those close neighbors tvlzase front pt~rclzes or side ~vizzdaws tlza# can see rota our back yard wazzld appreciate not beixzg able to sec isz, l~nefzttizzg from a #ratler fczzce, versus a shorter fence. I'riv~zcy tnrauld lae~xptareciated by a1I, both we as property o~vrzcrs, axzd our nezltzbars. ~,, six foot fcnco an the property lice, versus a shorfer fence an the prapezty line allowable by City ordsnancc, would also provide a bcfter sound barrier. What would be better far the neiglzbarhoa2 i} a pool near a short fence allowed by rode that would . cczable adul#s and childrenz to see aver into the pool area, 2} a falter fence 14 fec# zn, wlzcre tlzc prapezty o~=zzcr is no lamer able to enjoy the afiezzzoan's sunzziest part of their lot .far tlzcir goal, or 3} a #aIl fence on #Ize property Iizzc? }}3 is a win-win. .2. Nr+~uld the vrxrirrrrce~rrovicle berruti~caiian to the nei~harlraad ar GCty: ~''es. It would alla~v zzs to utilize czar otivn~private~arapcrty rzzarc ztsel'zzlly ~vlzerc vre, as axvzlcrs, having access to that space, would bcazztify it to a rzzuch lzi~zer standard than what would be chosen azztside the fezzce to tzzinimally rt~ect city standards. 't~lxy invest in quality shrubs and trees that you c,azz't enjoy, where the rnaizz bcncfactors are those pcfs ~vlza defecate an ilzezxZ and tlxen the vege#atian evcntuaity have to be replaced. '4~"e believe these strips of laud da zzot serve atze of the prizxzary purposes they were intended--ta beautify #lic nci~izbaziaoc>d. Izx lzavin~ driven thrc~zz~l; crttzer nci~,tzbarizoods that Izavc restricted fezzcing variances, tvc Izave nati~d that tvlzen not izzcorporated zvitlzin tlzc enclosed fencuzg afttzeir private property, since the hazxlco~~~xer ~ unable to use that property far their personal use, they tended to let that part aftlzeir yard deteriorate mare; it ~svas xzot kept up as cardcrty as tlzc xcst oftlze yard area, zzor s~~s the vegetation chosen fio landscape tizase strips of land as quality as tlzc father larzdscaputg within the personal use areas. ~. perfect exarzzple of ttzis is izz a never subdivision off of Coker Butte izr Medford. 'V4re beI'zeye these strips of land arc tan~orrorvs' city nuisance. These areas outside the fence are definitely not more beautiful than the landscaping that can be enjoyed on the inside of the fence by t3ae prapeerty ovvrzer. Tv allow the fence to be built an the ro rt line ~varztd eczlzance the beau of the rzci zbarizaod b crcatin a lar er usable area far the lzarrzeowner ~vlza ~~,=auld a reciate tl3at stri of land tlx~c zziost. 3. T3''auld t}re varicxtrce rrravide sandy to the tr~i~Jibor}roerd ar Cittr: 'Yes. As stated prior in # 1, because a pool wilt be constructed to #Ize westerly side caf the property, a six foot fence an the property line ~vazzld provide Winch more safety and security to the rzeighbarhood and City than if it were only ~2°` izz lzeiglzt, ~~=biclx could be clznzbed over by clzildrezz, wlxa ~rould be most ai risk, 9 l~X'ill the vcrriarrce rravitle raiectian to the Wei Irlrarliaad ar Cif T: des, because it c1~~tends the bacl~yard fenced area where peafaie, inclczding children, ti~=itt be gatlzerizzg, irz addition to pro~sridizz,~ additiozzal ezzclased space, allo~vin,~ a separate space for the fanzil}> dab. Providing a larotccted space for the dog i.zatlarectly pro~~ides <zn addifiozzal degree of protection to both adults azzd clzildrezz izz tlxe zzeiglzborhaod. 5. ll ~!1 t}rc ~}rrrianec }rlrzre rrnt= rrtl~=erse irrrfrnclS Xrjrorz fhc rre~}rthar}raad? l`la, to the contrary. ~lstlzeticall,~~, better qualify vegetal"razz wilt Ire used iftlzis ~rariazzce is approved. The rzeiglzbors ~~=ill tae protected from hati~izzg tea see into the bacl.~}=ard area whezz walking b}r. lu the f~zture, zzeizlrbors won't Izave fo look at run do~~~z vegetation #Izat could occur over tirzze fron-z inferior zzp~eep, It 'will etzaaurage izeiglzbors to trot alla~~r tlzcir pets to defecate an the hidden side of Sze fence ~vlzere they tlazzzk na one razz see, andlar leave the feces witlzoui piclcizzg it up to dispose of, because it is on a strip ofvegetatiotz Izidden fxan~ the honzeo~vner. I-laviszg the fence an the property lizz~ elixzzinates the vegetation for pets io be attracted ta. ts. 3l'ilI the r}erriance ut}lie ra ert r tvithzrr tyre intent arrd ur ase a tare anc rizsfriet, `Yes. The fezzce that ~~=ould be placed on the properfiy line ~~=auid acllrere fo the canstructiarz material regzzired lay the CC~R's aftizis zzeiglzborizaad arzd that of residential zoning in #Ize city of Central Pazrzt. ~~ge L S{LA.L, nc nisi uuuc t;~5 uut t:tllit:Gii.l?,sstAktl 1SatiCJ iii alt-1YiiiC property OZYL1GrS i1izU cac}zcns ©1 ~,..CI1tCat .t'orrlt: `,$:p~ll,~~En~ for a variaaca, or seckizzg any cI}ange irz cziy ~avcrnincrzt, zs arz uplzitl baffle, Ilcc~-zusa zxot~c~dy tikes c~rar3gc. even ifit's to ttze cozzxmuzzity's ~}enefit, there are at`vays tlzasc xvlzo will at}pose it, just Ilccausc they I}avc tine pawcr to da so. '1'he City of Cezztral Poixzt has increased the fee of £cnce variaz}~ applic~3tion from $20(3 to al.z}xast doirblc that tcx $350. ~~Izy? Is the puzt}asc to discaurage pcaplc frazzx filing an application in the fzrst ptacc? Ozze has to feel very :_ straz}gIy to gamble sa zxxuciz znancy. We do, and that's ~cvlzy rvc are alaplyin~ far tlxzs variance, ~iccaz~sc Kre Irelievc tlxis ordz'nancc is a veiled taking o£taz-zvate rlranerty. '4~'Irat is the `ustilication of this ordinance? If the justzfzc~~ztian far the restrictiaz}s fa tI}c ~zrapcriy a~vncr of use a~tlzeir awn land is because ofzzecded access for the city to pcr£azm repairs or ixzspcctions, we ask tl}e question: I-ias azzy azza ever done a study ixz the City o£ Centrat Paint since tlzc fence ordinances ~svcrc put into effect to slzoxv lzow atzy times repairs within the ID' casement have been perfazxned, and if sa, do tlicy strozigly just7fy this ordinance? I£the rcasozxirzg is that it xvill beautify tlxe city, our question is: compared to r~vlzat? W tt it make tlzc city more beautiful than if the prapezty owner landscaped that area ~ritlxin tlzcir o~cvn fence? ~Vlzy should tlxc hozneowzxer be forced to give up tlzcir prapezty far the "beautificatiozz of the city"? This issue was addressed prc~nously and, we believe, cazxnot be pravczz_ Taking of Private ~'rot}erty: ff the city is going to require tl}at Svc, as priYatc Itamcawncrs give up ilie use of a IO" strip afaur awn land far public use, yet stilt 1zold us respansillte for znaintcnarzcc and taxatiozz, tlzcn slzautdn't tllerc be faix and just compensation a~svaz-dcd to that lzazneowrzer, and taxes credited back for that pcrccrztage of property the lzonzco5`:ncr is rzat allayed to enjoy'? There is legal precedent that ttzc Izazuco~vzzer razz successfully chaltezage this izz a courtroom. (Sec Takin~s...Private 1'ro~ertY and the 1'n}sTer o~Fnzinerzt 1~7o~ltain~, by R.. Epsteuz, and ~Iow Slnrrrt Grazyth 11Yill Farm .~rnerrcan Cr"tfes_ by R. C}'Taole for zxlorc inforrrzation regardizzg this issue.} Precedence: Because the City aI' Cezrtral Paint lzas sz;t a precedent in making exceptiazzs irz the fence placenxent, as slza~~rzx at 262 St. dames ~~`ay, and 2799 Oakview Avenues, bath new szil}divisians and where both addresses Izave mzrclx busier £oat and car traffic area thazi ours, it wazrtd scan justifZal}le that another cxceptian be altawed for our fence to be waved also, and lzapefully, the City of Central Point ~vili be 'witting to chazzge permanently a I}ad ordinance that Izarnxs, and doesn't benefit the cazuznurzity, as this pazticular ordinance does. Privacy ftialxts_ and Private property o~evz}erslizt}: We believe tall fences should be allowed an the ac~~zer's back yard property lines. The purpose a£residential zoning in fizzy carnmunity is to allow its citizens to enjoy lzozzze axvnerslzip, ~vhiclr includes outdoor living in a private setting. The reason living in a lrazxxe Fvitlzin a residezrtial area is snare cspezrsive than living in apartrzxents, condozrtuziuzns, pr mobile lzozxxe parks, is because the owner is ctzargcd, by ~vay of purchasing price and ar}gaing taxes, and is t~=illirrg to pay a larger percentage aftlreir eazxzizrgs ta~vards housing, izz exclzazige far having access to larger, znarc private, living spaces, bath in the bonze, and in outside Iivisrg areas. I-Ionxe a~~7rerslzip and private prapezfiy a~c~zzez~sl}ip reiterates the freedoms ~cve enjoy in our natiozx tlr.at rz-rake us differer}t fronx zzxast atlrer zxations. frrational I2atiaraal: .ft's been said I}}r same citizens ofCezztral Paizzt that sozue leaders in city gavenznxent deziy variances because of enx~r, z~sing the rationale: "ffwe ca€r't Dave our fence moved, then ~vlzy slrauld others be alIoSC~ed." Isn't this childish thizzkirrg? Izzstead, don't the x~=az}t to fallaxv tlrc C}alderz fZu.le - Igo tznta atlzers as you ~vauld Iaave tlzenx do unto you."? ff the I'tanzxiug Canuxxissian or City Couucit zxxeml}ers could Iravc ilxe choice over Irat~v they ~~=auld individually use their a~xi private property, wouldn't they ~~"ant full access to er}jay tlxeir ot~~rr property? If so, and i£it Izad na adverse impact orr others, wlzy riot ~,vish tlxis far other hazzxeoFVxzers? Bcconririg a flettcr Ciiy: Can we learn fx'arrx Iza~v other cities ~~=rite their ardizzances? Ycs, i.f we are a thirzldzi~taeaple and not just fallowixzg suit, izx Zack-step fasluan. 3usfi because one city's fence ordinance is such & such, doesn't make it necessarily sensible ar goad £ar the corzzz}xiznity. ~Ve tivill use three sautlzezxz ~C3regon ta~vns to prove ties point - Eagle Point, Ashland, and Phoenix: 'tie {Kay} recently spoken wittz a represerzta#ive zn each Planning Dept. fa gather tlxeir ardirrance specifications on fencing. Been tlzouglz fence ordinances nxight seem like small issues izx ttze cozxu}auzrit~; ordizrances are representat~ ere of Ira~v "smart" the local govcrnizzg body is, or it reveals to tl}c caznnzcrnzt}~ I}acv tl3eir leaders view the ri~lxts ofit's citizens. Ilc~a~ ~ ~~ zrx z.czc; c.,zzy at t:a~te #'oint, t}zeir side fence ordinance on a corner Iot allazvs a fczzce of errly 42", tvlzc~tzer zt be azz f~za property line or set back further. haw does that make logical sezzsc? ~~lzat good is a ~2" backyard side fence that `_ 'people can see over when they walk by? But when you lank at the City o£It..aglc Point's long-#crnx planning zzt Izausin~> you see flze sarzzc lack oflogic in their had~e^nad~e cornnzzznity that, wiflz the c~ccpfian a£tlzc golf course, is zzat the most desirable place tQ live in the valley. . Nexf, Iaok at the City of Ashland, the town knowvn as ozzc of tlxc mast liberal, fa~cd cities in 4rcgazz, s~~itlx greater restrictions on private property owners, '4'trith a more "socialistic" zzxizxdset,l~shlarzd's city leaders I~avc cazxxe up with #Ize folla~cxriag side ferzcs ordinance on a darner lot: I~Io fence is allowed. I~tat a big surprise. f,.astly, the Cit~l'haenz'x's fence ordinance makes goad, caznnxan sense. Tlzcre is a 1f}' easement far city utilities, "Yon eau pat a 6 foot fezzce on the property line, but you, as a property owner, are fully responsible far replacizzg the fezzce or landscaping at your awn. expezzse, should the city nt~d fa gain access fa that easczzzezzt fo maintain ar fix problezzzs witlx the utilities. Tlxe hozncawxzer razz choose to just put tlzc fence l0` inside Elie property line #a avoid this Irasste dawnroad, slzauld #his type of incident occur, but the homcoi;rrzcr lzas the choice of Izaz~r and ~vlzcre tlzc fence-their a~vn ri~vate raerfy, This is awin--win sitzzatiarz. It gives the City what #lxey aced-access, without flze cost fa #Izc City; azzd fl}e hozuex7ti~~er nazi utilize fully their private property by placizzg the fence azz tlxc property Iizze, should they wislx fa da sa, Please c~cuse tlxe Iezzgtlx of this discourse, but we ask that yozz, as leaders, to give deep tlzauglzt is the cazxtizzuing support of K~zzxy ordinance withizx the City of Central Point that toys 'tvitlz the private a~vncrship rights of its citircas. Cezzfral 1'aizzt lz~•zs Iazzg been known tlzrouglzozzt the state as a hard ~vorkizzg cozzzzzxuzzitY made up afircasanably znindcd, salt-cif-#Ize- eazttz, wlzolcsorrze citizens. Do ~~re want #o go Elie way of Ashland city govcrzzxzzcnt, where cozxunan sense is overzuled time and again for small special izztcresf ,groups? ~~'e hope zzat, ~vlziclz is wlzy zrzaxzy choose tlxis coznmuzuty fo live in. Are you makizxg decisions that a re truly for the good of the canuzxzznity, ar are you makizzg t~ze easiest azzd most expediesaf, or politically correct decisiarz? Thazzk yocz foe yazzr consideratiazz ofour applicatiazz. ~ Ere 13erryntarts 1'.S. Please Hate txva additional attachments: a prior lief ofzxeigl~bors in C.crztral Poizxt l=ast, who gave earlier endorsement of another fezxce varianr..e sxzz Ivleeadocc~braak, and a mare recezxt list s~£neiglzbars closer to our property, ti~rlxo arc izz favor of this variance. Page d ~~ ~_~ ~~ .. ~ .~ r , f ~1A~ r -'"` 1 ,~ / ~,,..~ 1 ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~~ ~ ~ r , ~ ~_y ~ ' ~' ~ ~ ~-„' 1~ _ ~~ „~ µ < r ~.~, • ~ ~ !! Y "~" "-.~~°~-..... etc a ,~~1 '~--~.""'~.~~ ..,.. ( ~ I t ~ ~ .. ,_, f... q °" f ,,, , i ~ s { ,J_ ~ ~ r, ~~ ~~t, f 0< j ~~fr2 ciilt7J~~1 .~;~ ~ ~ f ~'~ !~1111~ ~~1'~1a1~!t1C11~ ~~~. /~: ! - .~ ~-. - _ ,~ t ..yr, i .~ ~. ` ~ ~ ' r . ~ __ ~ ~; o ,~, ,~ ~~ ~. , ,~; f ~,~ C ~ _ ~,_~ r` ~~` X'"..-- ~ ,C G. ~,'- rtt t~ ~'. ~ C ~~ ~ "i l"i ~ ., ;; ~~ ~`t> > . G'~ ~~.~~'~~ ~- t <-Io= ~. v Se r ~~'~ .` ` . ' ~ _ ~ ~_-r ~~ ` . .. ; 7; °~~ ~, ~ ' ~ ~ I= ~~_ ~'~ ' _~,` l { ``° ~i5~o~ ~, ~' '' _. . A~piicatiari far Fence Vari~r~ce ~errym~n rho; following neighhprs caf X53 Meadowbraok Drive ~carner of Meadowt3rc~oSt end t~iour~tair~ avenue} agree that a ~` fence variance should lie allowed. T#~~y ~gr~~ chat this varian~~.wil( not ?. have any adverse impact on the neighborhood, and in fact, rauldenhance Cenfrat #'oint East. ~-~... ^/i ~'G ~'' 7F~G C.'/~~{-~"'YI~~C~~r' ~r ~ ~ r.~ '~Cs ! 1 C.! t 1YJ C' „s/~'~`: ~ j'ri'~ ('~ ). :+'/.~ J :=n''" ` / IJ' ~ {---%~ ~f'L.t%"r/./r-' ~r'"~... ~C"Mn' ~~ t ^ i ~ .~~' f{/"~ .,~,.~ ~~ Hate: Muc~~ af~']~ase d is Stitt in ~nstructiozl or un~ui~t ~ ~ { ,~ ~~~~ ~~,,~:s ~~~ ~~ ~~ (~.~-"ter .c3.f~ ~erit~;al ~~?':~.izxt~. . ;'Ia~nixig i3e~~z~trr~~.'f