The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution 730 - White Hawk ModificationPLANNING CQMMISSI(7N RESCILUTIC?N NQ. A RESt~LUTICtN GRANTING AI'I'I~CJVAL OF A MAJt~R MUDIFICATI(~NS AP'I'LICATIC7N 'Ct~ ITE I-IA ESTATES A RESITJENTIAT, PT, ~'~1NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Applicant: Duncan Development; A~;ci~t: Matt Sc?,c>idcgger, CESNWr Inc (37S 2W 02, Tax Lets 2700 aril. 2701} File No. 07119 EREAS, the applicant submitted an ~:J~}~licatioc~ for 1Vlajor l~!lot-li1'i~ <~i~r~s for the redesign of a resiclezztial plan:nec:l d~,,,~~{~px-rtc~ntknon a White 1-hawk Instates (File l~lo. 05011) within the I~.-1-6 Residenti~~l Single-Fa~~nly zoning district. ~l'he property consists of approximately 20.14 gross :It: rt~~ge and is identified. on tl,:e Jackson County ~1~,~t~~~c~r's map as 37S 2W 02, Tax Lots 2700 and 2701, loci: t~~i .~ t 71813eebe Road.., in the City of Central. Point, Oregon; and EREAS, on July 3, 2007, tl~e Central Point Planning Commission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed. the City staff reports and heard testi~nc>n`r <~~-~d comments on the application; and 'WHEREAS, tl~e Planning Commission`s con5iaer~-,tion of the application is based on the standards and. criteria applir<~b}e to Major I`/lodifications in accordance with Section 1.7.09.300, Planned Unit Development Section 17.68, the R-1-6 Residezltial Single-Family zoning district Section 17.20 an~i ;1}~lai~cation Review Process Section 17.05 of the Central Point Muz-iicipal code; anti WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicant's request, it is the Planning Commission's determination that the application does comply with the applicable standards, criteria and subject to compliance with conditions as set forth.. in the Planning Department Staff Report (Exhibit "A"} dated July 3, 2007; now, therefore, Planning Commission Resolution No. {070307) PASSED ~y the ~'ian~7in~ Cr,»~n~iti~io~i a~~ci sgz~ec~ key e ia~ autl~e~--tcatoz~ of its passage this 3rd day of duly, ~0()~. ATT I _'7T: ~, s `"" § + ~, ~ °~ City 1:~~presentacive Approved by me this 3rc~ day o~ ju1y, 200. e ' _ ~.p,,~® ~'` f ; l ~'~ I ; I l lg ~f.) dXl 'T'li ~' ! ~JI"l ~ J ~ :~1 11' I'~anning Commission Resolution I~1o. (0703CM7) ~g _ , -- P ~ t~..; f ASE A T :File o. 471.19 1 ~~ 5~ ' ~ j~f_ C,t ~~~ .~, 20(J~ Ire in r°~ t 04Arn ~UrYt~7{"19~° f, iC~~ Cr~r~t~ttrtity G7v~lcs{aerrt C~irectcrrr t~ssistant City Adrr~inistrai~ar STAFF S4U Connie +Clune, 'Vdhite Hawk, a previously approved 1'UI) (July S, 2000, is located on approximately 20.14 acres and was designed far 91 detached single f ily homes and .64 acres of span space (Figure 1). During prelimin engineering, can inants were discovered an the northeast earner ofthe subject r7~t4. ;~' ~ .~ .,~. ~. ,~{ <~ ~ ,,r~ ~ ~ ,, .~, , '~G t ,y JJ J ~ i ~ ~ y / / i~ ~. ~Z. ~ °~ :' / :' ~ ~ ,~ri~,~T~s ~'~ ~ 't. < ~~: ~~ -0 z ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' , ~ The Applicant submitted a draft report to the ~< ~~ ,, ; ;- Oregon I~ep ant afEnviranmental Quality `~ ~ ~:~ = ~ ~ ~ (I)EQ) far a mitigation plan far review d ~ ~ ~ ~.i y approval, On Janu 19, 200?, the ~EQ accepted r ''~ ' ~r< < h,~.,~i ; " ~ . r,.4 and approved, as a valun independent clean up ,, ,,- ~ ~, " ~ ., ~. progr (lOp), the Applicant's mitigation ~ ~° `~ proposal that required the removal of the con mated area from residential use. The elimination of 4.3 acres from residential use required redesign and re-approval of the original 1'Ul~, thus necessitating a Page 1 of S oast I'or modificafior~s. 'I°c proposed changes to the ter~taiively apprc~ve~l I'JI~ are considered ~ °I'pe III Iviajor Ia~iodi~icatic~ appli ° iior~ per tS iion ~ 7,09 o1'the +t~entral I'oini 1Vlunicipal ~C."oe;. Fi u 1 I .._ _~. ~ #~ i~tn ice- :~,-'-~-~-~ .. ,~ .. I ~' tr ,; ~~ ~ ~~ ej ~s ~~ r~ ;~ ~r_j ~,~... _.~_.. ~~~ :v... ~:..ua..._J ~1 ~.t5,a_l.~m~_L.:..~.~.:1 ~r. ....«.i'L..~ >3 I Y.' & 1 ~ I i ~..~ ...~~~ ugxcC:va~r:{t~xatdx+~~xc.gw~ s. 6,_ #._. .~< .~. 4,'K97CMF¢R:9X11tT ..~__ _ ;.. k' Klxe~~rctc~~as~~4ffi~~::w~ ~ is ~W x t.. c' I r i l ~ f, : ~,,~ , ~ a %~ C G C. ~ S ~ ~, Ai ibis ii , ilte applicant is re+uesiirr, review crf the -_ modil~caiions io the original tcniaiively approved PI.JI~ to faciliiat environmental mitigation measures. sidewalks d I dscape `ps. #A Vs o i~ tion: e proposed rnodication includes R"V parking d 2"he prapasc~d di~catia incl 'I he n bar off' lots is u fro 91 to I with all lots being itio I d~ bed. single-f ily lots. A ~.,3 re co on ar designed to include a shed Figure ivied tan kt a q b ~ w.t ° J , ~ ~' as ;:. ~~' ~. m y ~. ,. ° . ~ , u ~, ,.,.- ~ ~ _ t ~+.s ~ ~ j Ceti, ... { ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ,,, _._ ,~~. rt:, ~ ~. ,.. , r ' ,, sy .. ...;^~ ~ p A Y:~tl n.«yni,r ~,~ .,~~r ,. i!f ~ ~~~ .,.`~v.aw ray +-rm.. {w«mgw~,~ J ~wr w~M^ M..,~. u e. ~ rllk, .. "yyw~ yy ~ . i wk j ,~. ~kw ~_.. ~ 1 ~, .. ,~ ,r ;, .~ w .. , ~~. ,; %'. ~,. . ~ _. -. ,w. ' . ~ ~~ I ~ ~?~ w_` ~~ .. Page of 5 garages suitable for RV or boat storage and additional vehicle parking. This area is for the exclusive use of the White Hawk residents (red area}. • The western Gebhard Road access location is relocated approximately 3S0 feet to the north along Gebhard. • Redistribution of the .64 acre open space to four separate areas {.36 acres total) throughout the development {green area}. • Elimination of the street stub to the north and alley-loaded garages. • Elimination of the pedestrian path at the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road. The original preliminary development plan and modifed preliminary development plan are included as Attachments A and B for comparison. Exceptions: Planned Unit Developments are designed to offer flexibility to the development and subdivision standards of the CPMC, The modif cation application does not require any additional lot area or setback exceptions beyond those previously approved, In the following table, the standard development requirements for the R-1-6 zone district are shown relative to the TOD, prior approved standards and proposed requirements submitted for the modification to White Hawk. Landscaping and Qpea Space: The project includes landscape strips along all streets within the PUD, as well as Gebhard and Beebe Roads. These strips are designed to accommodate the street tree plan. The RV area has been designed with a landscape buffer and plantings within the storage area. Each of the open space areas will be landscaped {Landscape plan sheet 313 Attachment "C"}. As part of the lCP care will be taken to assure that the planting areas within the RV storage area are planted and maintained in accordance with DEQ requirements. These requirements include clean soil to a depth of six to twelve inches to act as a soil cap in this area. FINDINGS: See attached Attachment "J" ISSUES: 1. The RV parking/storage common area is considered an accessory use to the residential development. Accessary uses can be approved as a part of the tentative plan review when the Planning Commission finds the use and structures in a PUD are designed to serve primarily the residents, and the uses are compatible with the design of the development. 2. The elimination of the street stub to the north is recognized in this modified proposal. The 2005 area circulation plan prepared by CESNW and the Gebhard Village PUD final plan provide alternative street access to properties to the north of the subject site. The neighborhood circulation pattern can be maintained utilizing these street designs, Page 3 of 5 3. The Public Works Department conditions of approval number S, was imposed by the City Council during their July 2005 review of the development. Condition #5 of staff report dated June 7, 2007, Attachment F reads: Beebe Road - Engineerin~lans: Prior to final plat approval the Developer shall pay to -- the City, for preparation o. f engineering design plans for Beebe Road, an amount of money equivalent to % the cost of constructing an aanhalt bike/pedestrian path along the northerly side of Beebe Road front the easterly limits of White Hawk Estates PUD to Hamrick Road. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL; 1. The White Hawk Planned Unit Development final plat shall be substantially the same as the Preliminary Development Plan plat, Applicant submittal Sheet 1 of 3 (Attachment "B"} when submitted for final review. 2. Prior to Final Plat approval the Independent Cleanup Program (1CP) far the identif ed area of the subject site shall be reviewed by and receive a No Further Action letter from DEQ. 3. An Easement & Equitable Servitude {E&ES) shall be in the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and the deed for this area as required by DEQ. 4. Prior to final development plan approval the applicant shall submit to the City revised Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions demonstrating maintenance of common area, architectural controls and Easement & Equitable Servitude. 5. All open space areas shall be identified on the final plat map. 6. The applicant shall comply with all requirements and conditions of the City Public Works Department (Attachment F), Fire District 3 (Attachment G), Rogue Valley Sewer Services {Attachment H), Building Department (Attachment I}, affected public agencies and utilities. 7. The Major Modification as shown on the preliminary development plan, applicant findings, and revised Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall supersede Chase in File 05011. S. Prior to final development plan review, the applicant shall comply with conditions of Pile 05011 and Major Modifications application File 07119. 9. Tentative approval is valid for six (6) months from the date of the granting Resolution. The applicant must submit the final development plan or request an extension prior to the six (6} month expiration. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" -Applicant's original White Hawk Tentative Plat Map Attachment "B" -Applicant's Major Modification Plat Map Attachment "C" -Landscaping Plans & Utilities Attachment "D" -Applicant Statement and Findings Page 4 of 5 Attachment "E" -Ash Creek Associates letter Attachment "F" -Public Works Staff Report Attachment "G" -Fire District No. 3 Comments Attachment "H" -Rogue Valley Sewer Services Attachment "1" -Building Department Staff Report Attachment "J" -Planning Department Findings Attachment "K" -Proposed Resolution ACTION. Consideration of Resolution Na. , appraving the Major Modifications application to White Hawk Planned Unit Development. RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Resolution No. ,granting approval of the Major Modifications application to White Hawk Planned Unit Development. Page 5 of 5 H l f f'~1~~"tlVi~kV ! ~~ I € E ~ I ~ I I 1 I ~ i II F ~ ( I I I ' ~ 1 36 2~yp {4 ' I I I I I { ! I ~ ' _ ~~ ~~ t 1 I ~`~ I I I ~l o ~-. >, = ~ x ~~ $~~~ ' I i E E' I I I E°~ - ~2' ~rl' ~~~~" LO~ ~-'" ca ia~-~- c~-'co~ - c-~~-~io' ~ ta~% ~oa.l i 8 8 8 I ~ ~ I ' a>ua 2 s~ SG rlao4 55 a 1 55 54 33 52 57 $~ g~ ~~ $~ WO 5r a000 Y LOW v 6CD0Y b000Y I I I I I I I I 49 ~ 27 1 50 ~ ~ I 4dW Y 4400 Lr 1tL3 aF I r t f G '- ~ 7201 Y L0 I I 25 fi 24 E z3 ~ ~ 00 Sr 40W se 4040 T r I I I 3 22 8 21 x_ 2U 8I l9 ~tl i8 ~1 77 ~ ~ 1 ' 40W ff ' 6 ~ Y = 4004 N 6000 SF ' cOOO y' r 10W 5+' ~' 1 1 t 1 f .a sp' ~^ il .'9 ~~i I - i.s__-~nN .L.._5~__ _ _ ____ m ! I 60-1____L~__ .. _ ^ f I ' I 1 I ,L fO____L ~4 __SL '~ I ~4 5f __1~6~~~.E.~~~~_ s~__ L__L___~W.~~L~. fA',~_ cff_J__ ss 2y __ I -----~ KPS'C12kiLAV~h1J~ ---- °~--- ~. _ ..~ _ _ ~ Y T .f; ~ M 6~~ ~ 'g„ b I ~ °$s i1' 3 57~ 1 L505 `F ,y »' +s. ~91~ ! V..1 Y J (r~5 % ~, I„ 78~ ~ 4i2 Y ~:' ~S~ I9 77 450a Y f ~ ,q as ~~ ~28 RI ~ .Ed ~ ,a~ii'~~s ~ Asa Lr ^I ' ; 5s' j ~ise2w~ I _ ,y x' as ba' iy ' ~ ~..~__~ ! t' 4' ~,. i I 4j 0.~ ~ ~~a U~ ~ 8~ m' I " 9~ ~''S .s~ dd' Ia 79 b ' :~ ~ ~5-~ ar 7C E-='e s` ar 29 ~_ l.-..-.--'-'~,~ ~I ar 40 b ~ slao:~ f ar 43 '' i-'-'a°-=..-! - II - I 0.31 sr aa~o v as:a sr » 1v sr IV `! -~_, f f ~-- --'-- ~~ '"B 420aY ......t w ~ ^ rM ~«~ Q' ~ R9 b' ' SSEO_Y 2c' ~~~ 8$ , I 8R Q t 3320 Y---~[IE' r.rl ~~ E ,~ ° $ . r 75 1 Ssd4_Y ~R) 7 30 .' ~1 ' S1t4_SF~SI ~ ~dY I C` 1 : ~ 39 1u0 SF ~' ~ d7~ ': 8 ~~ 4~i '~ J1W_S~r-~-I{' Qf ~aY ! ~ id '~ __ xas' t2 ~I ESlay i I /rte _ I ' c j ~ . j ~ 59 T Q a3si sr U __~-_~ ~' ~: >uro sr ~ 'sc ~87~ ~ t ~ x zo s~< } (~ ( a5' ( ~ ~82 °i G~r21 ~ _ 4 Lr ~r73~ 3 ~ Y ~ a' E~32~ K;~ ~ 3 a e4 sr ar~ ~ 37 §I 45 r; 1 w sr ~ r ~_ qG~ Of \ _ / ' ~ ~, I^ f.RAC-I-',~' / IE x»14 sr F ~ asl. •r , , I j I ~ '~ ' L4 GO r as1> sa ~I I ' 15;0 SF ' es' I: 8G I ~ 1520 "f ' ~ eo' I $3 al I ' 11a0 Y a>~ I 72 J.64 Sr ' J i bz= I I~33 '~ ' 1ca0 SF ' a r I' ~3G S~ ti j 6p $~ ' ~ er ~47~ 1 / ; fi/ ~ ~'^ 10 ' '+ _ _ 1 Imo' _ _ I 'I x_530 J BD' {} ss2a J ~ da' `cE0 Sr d2' I 77 ' ~~ GIGO ~ 1 aY as ~ SISO Y / LY I ~ is 1 ~~ND_5~ J DY E ca ' , <` 4L93 Sf +/ / ` ` ~~ ~ / ~ ~~~~ j" /+ ~ ~ 11` 1 ~ ! f 9 1 i f ~ e~ b --b5.'IY ~' ' G a5 j ~9~,9 F) \ ~-" _~_ - R4 ~M~,~ ! - - - ' _ '' Biif' ~_ __ ~ S aM551~ I _ 3~ - - - ' ! [. c2S55^`/~~ 111~22sur1.~..~ ..' _= _ E [ Id55~ I _111rrysss~..~~__.r._._......_~ - _ ~ 1 ~'~ +~\, ~'~~```Y / -~Y + . y ~\ttxs `~}t.tj C~~~ •f]~ + ~ ti21 jl j $ aa4 a r - ~ 9) i,ADY1'[n~'K AV);s]UL E '~_..--%p-_~GprT _-ap~__60 ~ 46' ~ 69' L3'~~~~~',,~ttt~~, 13 f I I S al r ~S' 8 $ I ~ //`+'~.a' T ~-~ S 17 ~ sT~ y `\ 65 $ ~ ~._\ i` r•co sr a0'~ sl-'.-....5T--5]' 1 i 7 ~, /++)/ /, 'I I +g1 a}a1 .'f' ` `` S 5 $ as4y J s 'A ~~ ` ~'' i 9 ¢ g L ~ J 1St C ~ I I i G3 G4 11104 Sf ~I 6954 !I~ J S4 GS GG Y ~~ 00]2 Y I 60W ~ a a'~ by a G7 ~ G8 Y ~ LOW R I E4a.0 Sr ~I ~~ L 4q ~ 7Q 1 G9 60W SF ~~ 6000 SL rI6] 1< GS' ~ 60 ~ 2 ]f]5 Sr I ~ b SL' ~ 4 _ 3 ! W0 Y !~ LO]9 •3' ~ 431. 'I .. ]a'~ 44'~ 5! "5 `1 ~'I` /_ `l~r~~~ ~ 2 Q- _..._. _ , _ _ ___ ,. ___ __ _. _ x . • _ ! ~ --.... - ~ ~ Qriginai White Hawk besign ` Fit N " 4 e a. 05011 ATTACHMENT " ~ n :0 15 a A loco 1 ~'i~~~:i I 1 ~ 2 ~ 3 ~ 4 ~ 5 b ~ 7 3 R 1~Lj' 9 ~ 70 ~~ 16 PnakNG -__-.-.-- i24, k' i LtGa'F ~ 4Xq 5( ~ s^Mi 'F; sW0 `f~ LPM :Y~ 4x05 ~~ dLM .•FI eb..O SS r ifSa Sr !FAG".3 1xOs - ! LS ]LN59 SfCPnLL fkC15 I ~ E ~I ~ _ ~ ~ }' ~~ id .~ s s a xl I so ba' e. ob z c ~ I u 2~ .. -, co,,:s aG 4~5~ ~ 5G G6 `"~""' ud ~ b 11 # U S< ,: ¢ ~0 3RD e'lbi s' ~.m T4}sr ~">xlF Sr ~ _-i~-- ~~+ I ~r.'-'__-T55-__ - Boa ".. ~-_.. -...__ S c.zi7sv ~$ Loco :e a7 ~b 54 57 G'# ,~»~u jjj _~-__ b]595G I 61.55r 4]M Si' `~~~"~ .. ~ ,oa r ~ _ I L~~s v' F2 f ~° a2 i L,----- aLOi :~ --~ croo ~. 48 53 n u s. sl ILZ sz »~n ~ ,r z iJd^-- ~ I bsoog ~ Oz sr ~/ ~ ' ~~ ~..___ a ~3 / b _ a ~ ;F Lma u E-..--. - - b - -~er - bz' -~ bo !_~e;,~a"o``T"L'o• 41 a149L I$ 452v 59 ~ ~/ `'w~ ~ 34 !~ F; a ~ 3G ~ 37 ~ 38 ~ 39 ~T _ _ ,mac "° 3 ne, sr Inl 54 LLC9 LF eJ~ ;F sop:f SF LCLG Y" 1 7 1 arynn y I 32 ~" '~ 4])I u r,e+ s I s5' ~ eL ea eo Lo' ca eo bo as ~ L^ ,~\ I7 /' - ~~~ e^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 Lvi sc ~ e oL' 39 4 29 4 8 S S $ 4 3 4 8 Fl 7 R ~ 3F aaco ;c ~~ w,o sr 7.6 I- 2,7 I- 2G I- 25 €- ?4 E-?.3 ~:. 22 (~- 27 I` 2U I- 79 ~ Ls1i ;r ~ € bmo sr I ~a~a sr coca ar ' aLao v ~ ao7o u ~ exn u ~ abw se ~ Lxo ss ~ e~ sr ~ aa+i u ~ Ls1i sF ~ ` E -~ -----~ _~ ~_ _ _r ZO.YING 1?`fFOIt,tifA'C[Oti T!I;iL,ttTl U1~SISITY 41,^lii~/ACNE Am, ~[,yU;54 SIA1:YAP9 T"IL2!6kY Ste'. :dAZliRli)11DLHSfIY 6U: TI]/ACNi: 543~TtIL F$[I]LYnRll(s'lkk[T$111!l IOFr. r(I1:lel(,.~I I.OTnRr (L\'1}~fON) S.WOSQ. IZ. ML E`~!I.'IS RFwNYAAD IS FI hL4'LC+IinILa't ARIA (Li'fERSON) 9.0a95Q. Fi'. n4A%4.l!LlS 1t4Tl.DS~'d I[L'Gi Ct 35 FT. S.m,'nl[;M IAT.v3f {COR'JER) i,pb~yl, Fy', $4n%S?.1L34 EOTCOV,"-4AGG Sa: MAX.'~IL`Rf I.OT AR:a{COR\lit} VA ~IIHf>IVII LtlT 1\TUTII{LYSFRIOR} SO Ff \01.L11LM111~T'NIDTII {COR`~'FJx} 60 kT. \OTi,`b[.N. LUT DF.PTII NA AIR~9utrv FPaYf YAHU 10 hT. Mociifiect Tentative plat White i-Iawk File No. 07'1'19 ~TTACHMIENT ~~p ~f _._.._._.... € I Y • E € v j iE I ~T ~ I^ I ~~~~ __ ' ~,~ _.~_ ~~' ah' -~,,v'-T_..69; .....~4. j as _.. 6a _.~~ ...............~, ~ k -~ ~~: <31,' I 3' i. ~,..,__l ~ ~3 s I ? ~ 2 s 3 c~ h 4 S ti; ~ ~ z? S F q $ IO I j ":."-'L-" ' ~ I i__ ~~-~ ' ~ I' ~ ~ 6>b S 4N~I SI ~ 4:aJ :F I G~^~.'~ y- 3 c;cc 'I ~ d[N Y ~ :;M ~ tao 3r 'W ]~}] J .a~~ ; , , ; ~A4~G - I , ,~ a~ ~ ~ i - - __ I ; ~,T ~' :-, __ 1: r u rt ~ xt l.+ IY, I- :rl o ri ~~ ; 4< I I ` ~ ~~ ~ 3' ~~`~~' ~ { f -€t-.--`--~.~F`i I n~~F., I soa~5r 4~Sf ~ 1..s :r ~ .xa~~,. ¢~ E _..__-rfs^__- ~ .>~ I~ ._~J._~~._ F !` ~L~LL_.I 3 Ec "-i J 4.% '-°S~ cos' I W ~ )i .'i i I ~ n 5' E ~ 3 _ 1 _~ 1, .,,~~~., ~ ! --~~-'-' I ;<o [E --="~-----L_....S...T ~slr bs:.; 1~ ~,_~~ ~~ f~ a2 A6 I- ~3~ 1lL. __ ~ 56 ' f ; R ~ i , ~ ' ~ ', 1t W:F ~ I a:5] S<' _-- .._FSG-^w__- I! _ L~~-__ ~S / f 1 G ~:t 1 ~ 1 ~;,~ le ~n in ^I~.<€.. u ~ I r--__io; ___. I 1e~ I~sie_ ~ ~ I~ ~ µ _ °~__-- -- --~I: __... x ~--.d.. '- ~~-...._! {a --'" -e3 i bavl v 3 i ids7 sr ~~° bu9 c: I 59 ~'~ ~ ~~ Sse: I°_ ~4 GS 3G S% ~ ;S ~ 39 ---~--- :I I ..__^r_._° --~W '-- n_„G ~ ~ I,~ ~'ti /~ Ilse ~r 35 I ca39 = ~ E~ c I + (J ; ~ I r.E 3. -s YJ_ .. ~~ 4 aldt w €. CMR 'J' ''.~G~".n r I'+ 1 c a ~ ~ 1624. ~ ~ eawb ~ 4 el ~ r ~~ ~ I - ~ S" s s I ~ .4 ao br ~ ca' 4 4~' E eo ~ ~ I e. I %' II \ 1teY J ~ 40' 40' + ~` ' f r ',~~' " J > 30 'S 29 ~ ~ '~ ~i 2G ~~ 25 '~ ?q i2 2g ~~ 22 I~ 71 !a 2b ~~~ 19 ~'} au]~ , s5 :r `~ =/- ~:., •]~ ~'tl4xC5 ~ ~ ]09C v 1 cv ~.a I 7^ ! E:*:0 :- 4PM 5: 04PG `s GCVO S' . e4L'> :° eeaa ~ 4^.3' E531 3~ /. ' , ~. i , ,~ 8194 'f ~~n - :JM '+ ' ' % / ~` , ` , I I i : 1 ~ / ! ;n ~.' I _~ _~ F ,~ ~ !~ - '• 7h w 7 7 i j.i% /) .. _ . U ¢ ~ Q ~ Z_ ~~ J - W 1 W r a ~ 2 3 F~~ l~srru~, xe-lo9;)i'~ ::,Sxl~E^ Bi~:r.< 0:"~) x 'J .u tit 4u ercus 'u/~~ (R!'r Ca~j Yc 'i it.;,a ..__,.,en:a~s (Am~r:aan Arco^.~ccw. ~ ~ ~~i.....i_.~-. vc /~_''. ji-^r`p , .~~ . ~{ k ~ 2 ~ 1 ~ ! ~ i G ~ I 9 i ..!' Y .P«E, '', ~ QS a '~ r ca zoxx ir~~rz ants •~\~rr a ..,v--~~ '`..rrar .. ~`'» ~., ~,,,,~.~-~7~-~. :,~ w? ..rsr`~`~-T v-'-t .. `!~`5,~`v~'wf}.'s'Cv°'"'S~. i r>.~._. ~.~r€_..''I~' ~ [~ -tl~-,~ n'~~n r,~ en .:n r.••, .n,~JTrr}~:--~..~;_y-sA3..~.~ . -. _:-y v 1..~ E 1 E ! :, f :, ` I ' :+ E:~ I'~ .?-C~ ''v-'~-'~`~-`S: '~:i~: ~- a-=f~,r~a~~ Y~ . „ ~~~~ , _~ i~C)S ~..(S ~ I.~ _+ _~_ ~ ~ r3 ~ ~ as s.; ~ ~~ ~ Go ~s ~r~i _t~71_1 11J 4.`li FUa ^i ~.... __...__... - i t ~ "-__. r ....._....~-.. ~ ~~' ~ ~~ rip/l 1~` ~} ! ' ~ i ~ s• ~.,1__t._!~'~;~0.+:-flF,'~'G..' ~'+~. '~._ <i~.w. _a'" __.-n"__-__ ~ 'k9 S~Y_~ ' ! ~9 ~~ S_~ ' ~ ~ ! 3h 4 ~ ~~ 3G 37 3S 39 ~~ ~ ~ '---..._ -- ',~f7~ ~ ~ 1 '/ ~f~,r~ i'1 ~ r C ~ ;~ i. ~ ~ ~3 . r Y ~ 1}{ ~ r` ~ w ~`• / -------- `---'~ j ~~ ' Y i r a;n cns~r^ .r , sr; rn n`i. .~..-°~4r"L.~.:L'~~;£`a-.`"~~°~r~~:-~--,~-~ ~ r 1 '\ 3G . J /. 1 '1 t. ,} ~ J _.., _ _ ~~ ~ ~ 39 € 24 ~ ~ f ?S ~ 27 I ~G i 25 ~ 24 ~~ 23 ~ 22 ~ 2t j 20 ~ t9 ~~ tS ~~ -J ~~~ ~ 3t i ~ ~i € ~ _ I _ ~ ~ l Y Q ~ _ ~~ 11.1 E= '~ z U ~~ __. U z 4 ~~ Q W 2 Q ~ U W L>7 ~ II d Z 6 J 3 ~, _. s ~1 ~_1 ~~ WhiteHawk Panned Development (MA.~OR MODT~'~CATIOI~ White Ha~i~k P€a~~~~ed lae~relopntent (M.AJOA M{)DII''1C/~"1'lON) ~" City of Geniral.Point, Oregon ~ ~ *,. ~` D~ncar~ Developioea~t, Inc ~~, ~~ tt ~~ `~ ~~ Project Description A - 2 A - 2.l Project Information ~-oject Vicinity White Hawk, a previously approved planned uxrit development (PUD), is located on approximately 2D acres on Beebe Road in the northeast area of Central Point izi Jackson County. The site is NE of the intersection of Gebhard Road and Beebe Road. 'The county fairgrounds and park are west of the property, across Beat- Creek. Proposed Modij~ication The original White Hawk PUD approval was for 91 detached single family homes of two distinct types. Lots 1 through 49 were designed as traditional subdivision lots, while lots 50 through 91 were designed for alley-loaded "neo-traditional" detached single family homes. Durixrg sail testing, arsenic was found on the subject site in the area of an old orchard. As a result of DEQ accepted "voluntary clean up program" the original PUD needed to be modified to accozxzrnodate the proposed clean up. The proposed modifications include: • Reduce the number of lots from 91. to 6l with all lots being traditional detached single-family lots. • Relocate the western access location approximately ~5D feet to the north along Gebhard Road. • Reconf gore open space layout. • Add private storage/common area for the exclusive use of the residents. This area includes attached garages suitable for RV ar boat storage, wash and RV sewer disposal area, 4 uncovered RV sized parking spaces, 6 automobile sized parking spaces and various landscaped areas. Cne garage will be provided for each unit irz the development. • Eliminated pedestrian path at Beebe Rd, /Gebhard intersection. The fallowing application seeks r~n.odification approval from the City of Central Point, in order to revise the already approved PUD development of the property. Modification Endings are shown in ~~~~~~.. Cl;SN1X~, Inc. Page 3 of 2I Wl3ite Ha~~l: 1?lanned Developsneslt (MA.[OR MOI)1PIC:11'I'ION} ~ ~~ } ~-~'" City of Central Point, Oregon ~ ~• ~ . ~. K; Ds~ncan Development; Inc ~ ~'~" '' ~^a ,yam ~- ~~ ~ ~ f~5+ .fit' :..~~C .`.i(Anl. Y ...., ~1 Land Use Approval Findings A - 3 ~.~eC~~.~f3~ lira{~es~ n?c~cla~oa~ionsa A. Major Modification Defined. The comrnainity development director shall determine that a major modification(s) is requixed if orze or more of the changes listed below are proposed: 1. A change in land use; f~'tT7.C~i7.1~: Ind€7 f'~i.~i~~i: ?xl. ~~1"1Ci~-t~~c, t4 j~iL7~L7~~C, 2. An increase in density by zxsore than ten percent, provided the resulting density does not exceed that allowed by the land use district; ~lf3t~7T'1~?;; rE`he ~3T'C)~)CiSC'C~ TTIi%C1.Ii~.Cc~IIC?7:7. f]Oi~S r}4)L t7'sCl.ude c~T7 1T7C;t°~'a~~ i.:Ci t~~.3"kSI'~:~~, 3. A change in setbacks or lot coverage by mare than ten percent, provided the resulting setback or lot coverage does not exceed that allowed by the land use district: F':nd~ng: ~h~ ~~ifr~~;~1~ioT"s~.~ sLd~i€~2i°:~~ ~f.riii ire €~OriS1.St~lxt ~nrit~:i t}~~- c.~ri~i77.r.~1. ~ ~~ j7f'C7~r~ 4. A change in the type and/or location of accessways, drives or parking areas affecting off-site traffic; C xf'€G.TI~~;; ~~~" ~~iC=Sl.c i"fi. ~~ C:~:SSWcz~~ ITa ~v ~.ilc ~LLC: ~r'il~. ~~ S'C({it:c~tCC~ ci}:(:3a~CJ?allllat~~t' 5. An increase in the floor area proposed for nonresidential use by more than fifteen percent where previously specified; }~'i~da.zT~: ~"hu p€°c~~x3s€:ci nzodiii.c~tt~ier? i~~a~.it~d~~ a sl€7rage ~z'c.=~ f~?: t;.~c e~kci~tsz~r~ tr;se €~E tl-i.€: pt°€.3jLcfi ~.3si~.et-~.~_~=. '1: his f~.at:t~rc eras T7ot incit~ciec~ i~ i:l7e. c~ri~it~.a1 ap p~-O~~a.i. 6. A reduction of more than ten percent of the area reserved for common open space; or ~`inc~i.rT~: '°!'3.~e c~yi.~i~~x~l. z•o~~~s~.I ~c~clu~e~ ~l ~8,~0() s~.taarc fc~~:~t pc>ci~~:t i~;~.z°i~, ~r,'3.TC~1 €i?S ~"3E=[,t~ 1~1~1-€)i~~t~. ~iOxl~ `t.~l.E J?i`O]~Cfi. ~I712t~~Cf' O~i°1.1 ~j7`c~Ci: cti`s"~a~ ~"Trite ~"3~~'i1 r.t~ciuc~~,ci. i;~~T°c>?~ri~c~trt t~7c~ ~t7}7C~i~I.i3C~T7. ~t ~ ac.~°e si:c~ra~c/coxr~xrzc)?~. 2~z°ea h~_s ~;e~T~ added ~c~ tl.~e far€3jee1„ '7. Change to a condition of approval, or a change similar to subsections (A)[lj through (b) of this section, that could have a detrimental impact on adjoining properties. The city planning official shall have discretion in detez-minixzg detrimental impacts warranting a major mod cation. ~`~TIlC~1J.7~: i'~i7 C:n~i"G.1j1C~~?.~.( ~.~:(73°f.)~~f;.; ~"^:'~~[i: I7~C'is?.C1~C~ ~~'1~.1"1 ~.~'~.~ C)YI~3'"~~1 4~_f-;L'i.~;i.OZ, t7s `c...7"~' ~.i4=t~~ :~7z~;~? ±~,,'i.1. rs~ji:~i 1.~~~~ .~~:3L11~i~'.ii~C~1~i. CIISNW, Inc, Pagc 4 of 2I W[ute Hawk 1'lanz;~? De~~elopxre:;t;1;~AFOi~ ~~f;l~1F?CA'1'EC?I\) ~ f-'-~'` '~;`; City of Central Point, Oregon ~~- ~~~,+{ ~ ~. Duncan Development, Inc ~:. ~` ~% ..., _.~ n~~~ Planned Unit Development and Preliminary Subdivision A - 3 Chapter I7.58 ]P~.~rrraEl] UNIT DE1TELOP1uf1r1~T (pun} i 7'.58.01.0 - l?urpose. The purpose of planned unit development (PUDJ is to gain mare effective use of open space, realize advantages of large-scale site planning, mixing of building types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environzxzental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and structures. A PUD should have a harmonious variety of uses, utilize the economy of shared services and facilities, and reduce municipal costs of operating and maintaining services while znsuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions of this code 17.58.020 -Size of the planned unit development site. A PUD shall be on a tract of land fve acres or larger, except that a PUD may be on a tract of land of more than one acre but less than five acres .......... Finding: The proposed PUD is requested far a parcel of land totaling approximately IS.75 acres. The primazy requirement requiring a parcel of five or more acres is m.et. 17.5.030 -Application and review. A. Applications and review of PUDs shall conform to the provisions of Chapter 1.24 of this code and all applicable laws of the state. '1`he application shall be accompanied by a filing fee as set by city council. In the event the city incurs expenses in processing the proposal which exceed the amount of the filing fee, payment to the city of expenses in excess of the filing fee shall be a condition of final acceptance of the PUD by the city. Finding: This application fora 91 lot residential PUD is accompanied by the current filing fee. Nladifi.ca~~ion: 'this rr~odifieatio~ is ~c~ rc.°~#~zce tl,.~: ~~t~=mbe~~ of lots f~an-~ c~ l to 61 ax~t.~ ~ accorn~~ao_ie~ l~yr i.ho al~propr~aL~ faliz~zg fee. B. For any use wkzich is permitted or conditional in another zoning district, the PUD application may include an application for a zoning amendment, as provided in Chapter 17.88 of this code, or the PUD approval may include a condition to allow the use. Finding: A zoning amendment to R-1.6 has been submitted to the City. G. Where use is made of the PUD process, no building pezxnits shall be issued until the planning commission has approved. the PUD as provided in this chapter. Finding: The developer understands that na building permits will be issued for development on land associated with this PUD request until the Planning Commission has approved the application. CIiSNW_ Inc. Page S of 21 YL i,a L~ttite l-fawk Planned Developz~ient (MA.In€t MC.)l~il~`1t,A'l'lC?N) } -~~~' '`s,,.,~~, City of CCritial Paint Oregon `~ '~ "~ . Duncan Development, lnc ~ ' =~ F '`t~~ D. An. applicant may confer prier to application for a PUD with city staff in a pre-application ~ Y conference. Finding: Apre-application conference was held. 1/. The commission shall act upon the application within ninety days from the date of accepting the completed application, excluding such time as znay lie necessary to complete any amendments initiated by the applicant. In taking action, the commission may deny a PUD, zxzay grant a PUD as submitted, or may grant a PUD subject to conditions as provided in this chapter. Any PUD authorized shall be subject to all conditions unposed and shall be excepted from other provisions of this title only to the extent specified in the PUD approval. Fir,-dingy: The developer understands that the PUD will be subject to any and all conditions of approval imposed on the proposed project by the Planning Corrimissian. 17.68.040 - G`siteria to grax}.t ar dextp' a ~UI3. A PUD shall be perrzzitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards and procedures of this chapter. In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of the ordinance codif-ied in this ck~apter, and classified in this chapter as a PUD, a change in the use or in lot area, or an alteration of stz-ucture shall conform vvitl-z the requirements for PUD use. 'f'o approve or deny a PUD, the planning cornzx~issian shall find whether or net the standards of this chapter, including the fallowing critez-ia are either met, can be met by observance of conditions, ar are not applicable. A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of Phis title; .Finding: The proposed residential PLTD development is designed to provide two sizes of single ~arnily detached dwelling unit parcels. The street pattern incorporates alleys in the center three "double blocks" to provide a harmonious streetscape -eliminating garages -and providing a rnore pedestrian-friendly design on several interior streets. A central park space totaling over 1/a acre is located within the project, and pedestrian connections are provided in addition to sidewalks throughout the design. Street connections to Beebe and Gebhard Road, and street stubs to adjacent parcels, further the vehicular and pedestrian linkages between this development and future projects. l~ccli~icatifln: Th.e pz°oposec~ ~z~z€adiFic.aticasa ~.as elizr~inated the alley loaded Izorz-tes, cez~.tz`al parr space a~~d. pedestt-iaz~ cc~nner~tiol7s associ.af-ed v~-itl~ t.ho ~3ocket dark. '1`l~e original st.z`c:e~ s~~z:~.~~ tc~ the ~`LC~z°t~laerlsT paP°cel has boe7i te~z~-o~-'ed. access for this par.°cel ~xfas prc~~'ided 'clan°c~7~~lz the t~c'otaat°c~ ~fillage proj~~et. to i:~e rzo~~th~ the proposed t~odi.fi.c:a~ioz-~ cr3a` izzcla~de sznallcr aeon space. areas that af~t:~ shc;~,~-z~ thrc}l.zghcz~.~r th.f: 4u1?di.~~:i.~~~;:~. CLSN W. Inc. I'a~e 6 of 21 wizit:e Rawl: l'la€ined Develolznsent {MIk3f)[t MOI?il~f~;A`1'lON) ~~` '~ City of Getl~sal. Pair~.i, C}re~c~€~ ~-.~ ~n ~,;. Duncan Develaprnez~t, Inc ~ ~ ~ '~ :' ,_~ Wit. -rx r :, + { .~~' Fi rte. ~. ~~~ ;s "mss s x 8. The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensivc plan, the objectives of the zoni~lg ~.... ordinance and other applicable policies of the city; Finding: The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, because this is a residential project designed for land that is planned for residential development. The project complies with the zoning ordinance because the objectives and density envisioned by the requested R-1.6 zoning district are achieved with this PUD. All other applicable ordinance provisions are met as addressed in other sections of this application. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area; Finding: The size, design and functional characteristics of this PUD will be compatible with the nearby properties, because this parcel is part of a Master-- Plan that envisioned residential development at the proposed density. Vehicular Iinkage with the surrounding streets and adjacent parcels has been well located to facilitate safe, convenient traff c flows. D. That the proponents of the PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start constntction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessazy district changes, anal intezxd to complete said construction within a reasonable time as determined by the commission.; Finding: The developer, Duncan Development, inc., has been operating in the Medford/Central Point area for several years and has three completed or "in- progress" residential projects of similar size and complexity. E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and packing; Finding: Beebe Road and Gebhard Road are both classified as collector streets in the recent version of the Transportation plan for the City. 'T'hey are planned as collectors in order to carry the anticipated traffic from the recently annexed areas of the city, as developed for residential use. By selecting safe points of access onto the existing collector street system, the project minimizes congestion and traffic impacts. Additionally the project is designed with two additional connections to adjacent properties that will eventually be developed with public streets, providing numerous local street options for vehicular traffic entering and exiting the site. ~'~~}C}C~11:tCc~j~lO'1.: J~<~1(-`. ~Y'~'S1.~II"1 1C'~:~~s t:3C_?l.#:1~ t}7.Zf C~i111f;C;t.~ ~.C; L`~Y£ ~)}1~i1'd }'~•:)~«'.~ ~~~5 ~ePt.~ S~?i~t~C~ app?"C)s.T.lTi ~t~'~~; ~~:~? iC;~T T.C-s ~-}.".le t"t.t3~t}?, ~n'E"1IC}~ siJ.},. ;3J°C}5:3.Ci~~ ~"°~~~F~ ~iCC;~s~ G?~ {~ F:~itif'.1.`i'Jz~., ~'..{;jl~;'~rS.-r.- ~,T::t'E:i S~rSr~D1, Tf~.~ 55.~}~3 ~yl~t"~~'-~: ;~C3 t`.i).`° ~c.=.s?.~.C':~"3 ~~J?-CC1;l: ZJ~~~~vl'1:~' t`('.j'3"l~i~'i.4 ~t~'YOxC'.~ft..F.. t}-1° %~Ort~"3~l°il, ~(:YC~.I u~:l~t~ f~ca`: }~(;E:% ..f, r r~.,~ ..F._j"~ ,~,I< :flf °j-t ¢~ ~"s~i !_ ~~ ~i-:lil ~ 4 ~'~i t~ j TTr a c,; i-~ ( -. i-~^ rri. ~ .f,~..~-, -E ;L CESNw_ Inc. Paac 7 of2l -: ~: ~",~ite Hawk Planned 1)evclop€~~ent {i~,A.3E)It. t ~€fI~IF1C',ArI~I7N) ~ _-~=:~ ~` Cite of Central Pai~1t, Oredoi~ ~. ~ ,, - ~ ~-~ Duncan C3eveloptnent, Inc ~4 ~r ~~.~. ::Nd • -~ ~> .. ~ ~N 3 ~ f`S. obi- d ~. '1"hat cornznercia] development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed; Finding: No commercial development is proposed as an element in this PUD request. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-orgaraired with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; Finding: No industrial development is proposed as an element in this PUD request. l-l. 'F'he PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; Finding: No significant natural features are found on the subject property; therefore, this criterion does not apply to this application. 1. The PUD will be compatible with the sur7-ounding area; Finding: The PUD will be compatible with the nearby properties, because this parcel is part of a l~l"aster-Plan that envisioned residential development at the proposed density. ~I. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. Finding: The proposed PUD project will place no greater or more intense need on public facilities or infrastructure than anv other similar residential developrr~ent. The development will be fully constructed with all necessary publzc facilities, and the park will provide additional benefit to t'he area. i`Jlodifi.~~.~.i~~r~, tls~ p~`~~;~oseei ~odi.fzca~icx~~ ~~>-ill. re:duc<~ tl-~e ~.~uj:~.~.Qe:r of units fros~~i ~l_ tc~ X11, cli.j7~.i.~-;.al~~: the central park elet~ic~~~i. a.z~.d i.:~.st;~~~:~ ~~'ci~ride srn~~ll.ez~ open space tracts t~.hat: ~~T;.ll add tc the aesthetic tiraluu of tl~.e de~relc~p~~.ez1t. 'l`hc ope~~ space ~~-a.cts vrill i7c ~»x~t~ed and managed i~~T tl~e No~~rc~`i~~xe3~s ~~.ssociat:ior~.. I7.68.OS0 - Isre)`iminary develapme~.t ptan. A preliminary development plan shall contain a written statement anal maps and other information. on the area sun-aundtng the proposed development to show the relationship of the planned unit development to adjacent uses, both existing and proposed. The plan shall include the following: A. A map to scale showing street systems, lot or partition lines and other allocations of land for man.agernent or use; Finding: fihe drawing package included with the application contains a site plan showing the proposed! layout of streets, Tots, and. other allocations of land; including the open space tract. CESNW, l.rtc. Pagc $ of2I L~'hite €~awle t'€anned i3eve3optnent(l~,f~3012 Mt~)f71i~1C;~1`l•3~31`l; t ~~ ~~~ City of Central Paint, ~regorr y`~ ~ T~"~ ~ , ~:~ ~~, i~uncar~ i~evetapment, Inc ~. _ ~ y ~~ ~ ~~} r~, B. Measurements of areas proposed to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for public streets, parks, parkaaays, parking, pedestrian ways, playgrounds, school sites, public buildings and similar public and semipublic uses; Finding: The site plan indicates those lands proposed far dedication oa- rasorvation For public use. C, A plot plan to scale for each building site and cornmon open space area, showing the approxirrrate location of buildings, structures, landscaping and other improvements and indicating the open spaces around buildings anal structures; i.nding: The drawings associated with this application show the proposed open space, public in~rasiructure and preiiminazy landscaping. 1~~7Qificatir.,n.: Drav~Tirz.gs submi.tieci r-~.,ith th.i_s applir_atinz-z iz7.ci3~de the n7adi~ccl site, utility and landscape plan. D. Elevation and perspective drawings of proposed structures; Finding: No buildings or structures are proposed in conjunction with this residential YU1~ deveiOpmen~. E. A development schedule indicating: 1. 'rhe approximate start date of construction, Finding: The: developer anticipates initiating the infrastructure construction for `chase i during the summer 2Gu~. i~1ladificatio~l: Due tc7 Uhe r.-lelinea~ic:zi ~_z.~~l zniiigatio~a cf az-sel~ic found on site, rya 1naCc 5'Lrt~Ci:;~3.'C; l7,as ~.?i,~i"~ LCJ St7'uCt~C<. ?`-'~ ~.l.Fwz'T d~,tL ~~,7ill ~~ ~~~. ~aSGC'1 ;.717. tl7_[' ~ppra~al of the prapasea madi~zcatio~~. 2. fihe stages in. which the project wilt be built and the approximate staxt date of each. stage, Finding: The PUD project is proposod to construct in tv~ro phases, with Phase I starting in summer oz 2uG5 and chase II starting no later than Summer 2uU t . il!i~~dificatiarz: As r?~ler~ii.ni~7.ed abo~°c, the elaiis~.catian and ~~itigatifln cif arserli.c ound can-site has posl:ponLd the rJe~~clcpnxcz~r i.7f thy.: pz~oPer~'. A z~e~,~r staxt d~tU atic~ coz-z;<truct.iaxz tizxle line gill be ot~ltli~~~.ci hasec~ on the approval of tl~.e X51°c7posed rr~odifi.catione C~SNW. Inc. Page 9 of 21 ~ ~~ -~vi~i~e siaVvi: i~€a;,reG i7eve€nrrrier~ts;ivl/1.iC)3Z vti)i~iE~iC~n'l~i(71~l1 ~ ,: L:Lj~ UL LLLaEi QE L UILEL, VIG~'Ql~ ~~~ Duncan Development, lne ~ ~ ,~ ~ d ~~ ' . ~y ~`~ ~~ ~ ~ . ~~~ 3. The anticipated rate of development, Finding: The project will progress at a rate of development of 30-45 home sl;arts per year. ~,1c7c1ifiCal~ic,z-~° i'v:' ~,cy~f';i~~(.x~.~~.°_1.'t ~C:t;C'.€~lJ.l~: i;c"cS ~1~'~'~1 oi.~~l;rl~c~cll ~~'17.i 1tZ77~:. (~} ~lc`.~v ~,C}~.1~~.1'~-~<.;;10:?3 ~1:C7~.e ll"tl~~ 1i~3.~_~ f~_-. )~.i 1_ii;€.~ r}ci_~aC:~ Can ..1xC cc~:?~'Jl`(;~"c1~ c)~ t.~:i.s ]' 4. The approximate completion dates for each stage, Finding: The developer anticipates completion of all of the infrastructure in the late Fall of :~uv i . with construction of the Sinai dwelling uniis in ~vuti, ~~icclificat.ion: ~vhe deG-elc)per l~.~a~: incl.ic~~~i:ed tl~zat pasil~g `~~ill lac cleterr~:ziz.-zed b~. :~a:~ket cond~tioz•xs, It is ix:p~:ctecl thal~ ~~11 6 i Llr1i'L"s ~~rill be l~ui.lt. izi oz•ie ~:)l~ase a.lc~rzg wit~z tl~e si_o:~ag~: f c:c~Y~~lAl~loc3 ~ar°ea. "~'i <.~ ~.niicipate€~ co7~.pleti~~'1 d~.~.c i;~ 20(~~, S. The area, location and degree of development of cazn.mon open space that will be provided at each stage; Finding: The public open space will be graded and landscaped with insialiation of ail amenities prior io occupancy of the firsi dwelling unii. `i/tt~clfication: 'T`,e storage f cc~m.o:~ area is rz;~l~z~oxizr~aiel~T ~-,3 act°es; loc~~t.ed ~~ tl~e f ast: c:o~°nez-~ of ih~ site ar~ci lanciscapea from ~djoi?~ing properties. F. Agreements, provisions ar covenants which. govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the planned unit developzr~ent and any of its common open space areas; Finding: A copy of "draft" CC 8~ R documents governing the PUD development and the oben space are included with inns application package. ~i'he final ~;L; ~ R documents will be reviewed and approved by the Planning Director prior to recording the Sinai plat. ~lC,~C~l.fi%c~_~ioX~: ~~n 1?~;C~.~:it:~ti CQ;?3~ c~{ ~~.~`3L ~:,~., ~Ya ~-''C t;%I~1 ~1e .~'L~~.~1111~:~ed. G. The fallowing plans and diagrams either separately ar contained on the figures contained in subsections A through D of this section: 1. An aff street parking and loading plan, Finding: An off-street parking and loading. plan is not applicable to a residential development.. T~ne design of the public streets accommodates on streelr par~~.n~ 3~''l. 'Y,.L _l~l_=Cl~\.~.l l., f1. ~ L~:.7 fl ~JCIJC~La. ::~..~1. ~'.-)F5-•. C%~ 1~, ~~1 -~ .~. i. E, FY ~} .~l.. it l~~,tL ~~~.~A ~F•F~~F. iEe 1}-1 i. l f. #~i;Y.•~~~~1C~-C~-_~~ ~~)~1:N~~.~L'7~:~ i.~4 ~.~.i'. ~~l('r ~;ti~~~.r}"A T[~.s_`F.Li.i~f;"~; ~,'? i~~l-~~_'~'~-''i'~ ~a.L`~i.1..L7.ti s~.t`a...~.~.5 '~~~".~~ . ....'~' ~i33"'f3.-`_~i~;:°i:tG;~`~~ il: L'~~ ;~~,~~ i4'.,.t'•~.?'c:iis i"1;.~, r 3,..~5~' w[;C.; __ _.._._, a.~...w.,,~.------- -__.__. _.____.. _. ~_. ._.-- CESNW.Inc. Pace lfl of~ 2i ~fr'Eli£L' 1-1"atx~K ~'taltiif;Cl [Jl'iri',iili37iii;Fi:e~iE/il~l.i~'11< 1.lf)I)1E'1~:~1~1 ~~~)~,S ;Y x -_. rc~ ~r lJc.r:_: ai ~ i, ii~r, vlc,,~tiii ~~r rYai y~1.,?~ t ;;unCar~ Development, inc ~ ~ ~ ~~' ~: ` . „~ .. L~ 2. A circulati°n diagram indicating proposed rnoven3ent of vehicles, goods and ~., pedestrians within the planned unit development and to azxd f€~om ihorou~hfares. Any special engineering features and traffic regulation devices needed to facilitate or insure the safety of this circulation pattern shall be shown, Finding: The proposed pedestrian and vehicle circulation plan is included with the drawing package. The vehicles will travel on ail public streets and alleys, and sidewalks and pedestrian paths are provided for non-vehicular travel. itJi.~~iTiL:cti.3.~JA1. 'i~.ilE ~3:iv~'illci't ~1-t:C` }.)I~?1] >}O~7/~ aiI 331LC'.~IC3~ cit:;~',i7 cI':"~~:'. `t~a~::t~ ~{C:irti~~ ~Oixi't:~ `:;.d;`"c.~' ,i{~ u2'~ !!~i.;;:t:id L~ ~i ~ ~:~'.~ ,. E.i ~^• E-, ~-rl.~. 3. A landscaping and tree plan, Finding: Preliminary landscaping for the open space is shown on the plans; street frees will be installed per the C:iiv's planting and spacing requirements. a`~!iadi..~i~;a=iaf~.: l.a~.~dsc~.~izzg f~L>r the al.~e~~ space vrill bc. p;-c>j~ide;d ~~=i street tr:.ec ~~>iIl iJe in.stailc:ci der tl~.e ;ity's planting anci s~~aeir~.g regt~.iz~`e~:n~:r~ts. ~}. An economic feasibility report or market analysis, Finding: An economic feasibility/market analysis of the Medford/Central Point residential real estate mari~et is included in section A-4 of this application package. S. A solar orientation plan showing the general orientation of 1JUildings and roof slopes to eacki other, to streets, and to the landscaping and tree plan; Finding: A solar orientation plan is not applicable to this request for a residential development. hots :~ throug;l-1` i meet a standard solar orientation requirement, as do 23 through 28, 31, 41, and ~0 through 91. 63% of the proposed ions in the Pull meet the standard orientation for solar access. 'i`ne majority of the remaining lots will have some solar access potential because trey either race west dots ~2 tlarougn. ~yi or nave a pub"iic t2~W on their west side (lots 8 through 22}. This allows western exposure for some measure of passive solar opportunity. i~adzficai:ic3~x: ~~.s n~ez~ti_oi~ed above, a so1aJ• ariei~t~.tic~.r~ ~~l.an is x~ct. applicable t.o i.his r-ec{ ~=}ast. CIJSNW. Inc, ~ Pa~c 1 1 of 21 y L ~~°ttite £{awi; £'Earttted L~e~~etnntiiet~t (t.-1/t.itillt vxOi~i}.~i.Cl~"i'i(~N) -~~`" ~:<.- rr t n-. •_.a. n_..-. ~"'~= ~ to ~.~~y c?i s,Cn ?pct x ui:cc, vac~Jii ~,~-. ~t s ~4~ ~~ k}uncan 13eveiop~ient, 1rtG ~ , ~ ~' i~~ ::~~ ~' Y.. 4 i. I1. Other pertinent in£orzxxation shall be included as the planzxizxg camrrzission fonds necessary to determine any appropriate and desirable requirements that znay differ from those ordinarily applicable under this title. Finding: Representative home footprints and elevations are izacluded for the rear-tat ~ara~e entry units to demonstrate the iiexii~ility phis kjuD plan provides for home-builders catering to a diverse section of the re~ianal market. ~~if~~.ific:~t.ic~~~: ~.i.ie}- ~o~~c~i~:~ ~~t~its ri~vC x~ecij ~;ii~x!.:r~f~i.~-:c, ~I~r~r~tfnt•e, ~J.l ia~-o~~rr~~~c~. ?=1`ii.tS .._I'~ ...t~_~r~11:?Cif].cwi C~~(c~('..~1~~C: 51.i`;.~?i(' 7~~iilt;t-. ``;~::)1":,t.~(-;~~.~.~1731i1t~l7 ~rC:~. `s?i'C7\JiCJ%`i 'C3~t~J:~!?~~is;,C: c,Xli~ c< ut2lCj1.1C;' ~]~C;.`~t~'la: C)}?~iC)i~l:~-(ix1~'.i' IUf t~'iC' C'~~:`.i!.Cl%!71C, 17.f 8.060 -Final develagment glare. A. Within six months following the approval of the preliminary development plan, the applicant shall file a final development plan wlth the city, containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan. The same shall be reviewed by the planning commission and decided by the city council as set forth in Section 124.020 of this code. The council may, in its discretion and far a good cause, extend for six months the period for the f€iing of the f€nai development plan. Finding: The developer will submit the necessary Final Plan documents for review by the planning t;ommission and tree ~:itu Lounczi within the stipulates 1-imP~ramnc S. The permit for a I'UD skxall expire and become void one year from the date on which it was issued unless an application for extensiozx is fzled and approved by the planning commission. The one year shall commence with approval of the fizxal development plan. Finding: The proposed development will commence within the stipulated one year timeframe, or an application for an extension will ire tiled. C. Within thirty days after the granting of a permit from a I'UD the permit application f€le number shall be indicated on the 7~oo-€e znap an the lot or lots affected by such perzrzit. p~1i1CE1n~: ~l n.e ZOnln~` maps Wlll C7e amended aS neCeSSarV ENV lurISC11Ct-lore stall. D. '1`he final development plan shall continue to control the planned unit development after it is finished. Finding: 'T`he development of the PUD will be consistent with the final development plan ttlrougYlout tn.e construction of the su~divisian. 1'7.6$.07? - Control ©~ tl~e FLTD during and after a~mgletian. If the city council fonds evidence of a zr€ajor deviation. franr€ the preliminary or final developzxxent plan, it shall advise the applicant to submit an application to the planning commission for amendment to the planned unit development. An amendment shall be considered~in. the same manner as an original application. A. The building offrcia,l, in issuing a certifocate of cozxzpletion of the planned unit development, shall note the issuance on the recorded final development pion. )3. After the certificate of completion has been issued, the use of the land and the construetiort, modification or alteration of a building or structure within the planned unit development shall be governed by the approved f€nai development plan. ~-1;~N w. lI] G. ~. _ 3~ ~i'liit~ t~tfliUK ~rlattilecl f3evett~[TIt1eSlrt SiE~~ti.ii3it iV3~3[3il~jt:~`3~! it)IV~ -. ` .,~~r~"' ''~' ~i;~' f}r ('L3if i,L i Li:ii. Orcguii ~~c~ ~ ~ ~'~ Duncan Develapttient, inc :' ~ ~ `~ ~•` ° ~ + ,~: ~ :.~ yeas e ~~ ~~~. C. After the certificate of completion has been issued, no change of the approved Final development plan shall be made without an amendment to the plan except as follows: 1. Minor modifications of existing buildings or sis-uctures may be authoz7zed by the planning staff if they are consistent with the purposes and intent of the final plan and do not increase the cubic footage of a building or structure; 2. A building or structure that is totally or substantially destroyed map be reconstt-ucted without approval of an azxzerzded planned unit development if the reconstructiarz complies wish the purpose and intent of the final development plan. D. Amendments to a completed planned unit developrrsent tray be approved, if appropriate due to changes in conditions since the final development plan was approved or because there have been changes in the development policy of the community as reflected by the comprehensive plan ar related land use regulations. E. Na modification or anaendrnent to a completed PUD shall be considered as a waiver of the covenants ].uniting the use of the land, buildings, structures and improvements within the area of the PUD. All rights to enforce these covenants against any change permitted by this section are expressly reserved. .F~iriding: The development of the PUD vrill be consistent with the final ~1~~;~r^~~,,e~.L ~i~'"I T~.3~rr2-Ek~naLlL Li'Ie Corlb`Lrl~-CLlOn OI f~oLn 13IlaSC'S. i~10 amendments are contemplated at this time. Any arrlendments will be governed by Lhe preceding section of the %entrai mint iviunicipai Cade. E~:%ticiificatio~~: ~zs ~.~~~:~t.inr~ed ear:ize~- ir; this n~irz°aaive, tlae cle~jcit~per ~~r-~~;~ iUaE.<,5 ~l~c s~abcii~yi~ior~ ~~ c~~x~ip[.c;t~:~ in t~~8 c~epenciiz~g ol;. the l~arkei. 17.68.D8D _ Excegtia~s to zoning and subdivision tittles. The planning commission may allow exceptions within a PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street widths or off-street parking and loading facilities differing from the specific standards for the zoning district in which the PUD is lactated. Exceptions shall be based upon the applicant's demonstration that the objectives of the zoning and subdivision titles of this code will be achieved. A. When the spacing between main buildings is less than the spacing which would be required between buildings developed under this chapter on separate parcels outside a PUD, other design features shall provide light, ventilation and other characteristics equivalent to that obtained from the spacing standards. Finding: The proposed building setbacks for the homes constructed Lnrou~nouL Lhis nroiecL are as ioiiows: Front yard setback to house or front porch I5 feet min. .Front yard seLi~ack Lo ~ara~e door ~~ ieeL min. Interior side yard setback (regardless of stories) 5 feet min. ~Lreet side vary setbaci~ y feel min. Rear yard setback to house l 5 feet min. near ,yard seLi~aci~ Lo garage door ~ ieeL min. The objectives of the setback standards of the underlying zone are met with the proposed seLbaci~ variations, wniae providing Iiexii~iiity and opportunity Ior development of a wide range of home styles, Allowing homes and/or parches to extend closer io ine s~cl-eeL provides a varied sireeLSCane and aizows residents better opportunity to observe the street from front windows and/or porches. mailer interior side yard seLbacxs iaciiiLaLes deveiobment of >;he -ai3ev-loaded` iOLS with detached, rear-ioadin~ ;~ara~es. CF~SNW. I.nc. 1'a~e 13 af21 ;w Lkli,,4~ Iaav,yil` h1P...T~n~VI Flo~ieln~l~nm~f !'n~l~.€(ll{ h~flilEf=lf`h.'1'i(lTll ,': s~ rN - it .. ~«. 'l Y J LAI.~' iJi LCriii ni rUlill, v~G~vil ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i .A Tlanvan i~Y~~~~Ipn«~F•n€ fns ,~.~ ~ •.[ '~ .. ?i +~ Y^k iy-~ . . a tt(ce. nc': i,ot coverage faz° the individual lots shall be a nzaximurn of ~5°io for i:he "~llc°.v- ioadea" lois ana ~o ro for Lee nerime~er l:raazrzonal lnls. lee lncrea.ap:z z^z coverage allo~iuances are ualanced by the provision of a nag'k far active play ar~d community use. and the addition of alleys to remove much of the residential "~aras~e-associated" vehicle moven7ent Pram the interior streets. ~'fl<:1C:?3.Eli;c±l:1.t7.~i: .[~i7C.C'(', al'C` 1"iE) cL~zC'.1Jt :.~iSC]C;~~! [.t;i_~ ~r~ ).~17 ~.1;. ~' 1.7I"i3~f):at:.C1 t21()C~J~I~c~tIOYI. r.'.~~:?Cl"c;~C::t"gyp ~~li;l°F 1.S :[lt0 ~~;.~C~ ~Uf' c ~'.;:~1" .~C;~c~~1:~[7.~ ~={1':.1~~ SL-'~~?r3C:~~.. 1..(,~ C:i]~,'E'3."c(.~['. 3.f)T i:[1C', S. I:~~ICJ?~~1~.1 Ii3l.:~ ^Slar!(i i,if:: c~ i'.-{-irj;~.i1~`1.L1Yi::1 i;f = ~i`%t}. B. Buildings, off-street garldng and loading facilities, open space, landscaping and screening shall conform to the specific standards of the zoning district within fifty feet of the boundary lines of the developrrzent. Finding: The develonrrtent of the FUDr will be consistent thrau~hout the nroiect. and will be comnatiiale with the adiacent development and zoning districts. loo off-street x~arkin~ or loading facilities ase nror~osed for this residential development. V w l~Jlc~~.~[i^r8,.~.i{?:R; ~x C?-;~Lc?.~1 j~ui'iS:.1]~, ce,iCc': ~~1i1 k3G ~13'C)~r1~~:`~ t~%7.~hzz7 i:~:c~ s~:c)z"a ~: ~t,C~~T~?.1Cfr aret? ~~l-zi v:.-~li'. ~,;<. ~C3z~sisi.en~ i~~t?~ ±'.i"c (.' ~i:%~i3C1~~'C~5 of t~"iCi 7v.i7..i~3. ~t f C~ 1 S i"t`"t::C. C. The planning commission may approve building heights greater than those authorized by the zoning district. The applicant shall demonstrate that: indin~: The homes proposed for this nroiect will be 2 ~2 stories or 35 Poet tail maximum. as allowed in the underlvin~ zoning district. D. The building coverage for any PUD shall not exceed. that which is permitted for other construction. in the zone. Finding: Flease refer to su'osection ir"~l above addressing the adiustznents to various specific zoning district standards. and the proposed deviations froze E. When a PUD design would require exceptions to the regulations of the subdivision title, the planning commission may grant those conditions as part of the PUD. Tentative approval of the preliminary development plan of a PUD shall also constitute tentative approval of a tentative plan under Chapter 16.10 if the Enaterials are presented in the manner prescribed by subdivision title. Finding: i3o e~:coutions to the regulations of tree subdivision ordinance are necessazy to facilitate the approval of this ~u u apulication. Tentative approval of this FUG will also constitute tentative approval of the preliminary subdivision blare. The necessary materials as required in Title Ib - 16.10 have been provided. in the preliminary drawing package. C~SI~lW. It~c. Page 14 of2i ,~: ~kl iii{~o ;.l~xx~k.~ I)I4nnn. ~fi ~l~`~n.inrxm.^.T:~ ~i~r~~„Ii~~W ~1~)~)~:"~~.~: ~ ~t.kR~) a~~F ~ J V"I 4G ill Ll YLIlt IL, I:ICryV:l 'fR" ~?' Y y#.~<; i~T~no?n Des~elop>nent, lnc 4 \ r ~,~y ~=S ~' a h ~ 1~.G8.p~0 - Accessorg uses in a glannecl unit developxxxent. In addition to the accessory uses typical. of the primary uses aut~-,arized, accesso>y uses approved as a part of a planned unit development may include the following uses: indin~: IVTo accessary uses are ~ro~osed hl conj unctio~~ with this residential Yell develal~ment. 1_~1'1.Ut'~7~1G~C1[~~: '~~~; ~35."C)~3t~S~'.~~ Sty .iG~( %~CC)~Si:CI?.')~.l :~r,`_:~ l~ <~C77~,SlC~t J"~~i~ e1 I1 c3C:C.~'.S`:~:)l"~' C3 ~? ~.:? %~P,tiT'CJ1;JC3~~C ~ ~S':C~~;J"~':`1~~ dF'Vf~zC)r?f~C;~"Ii:. ~~~"J.~ ~tUl~ct~~~`Ct]ll~iTtc?ll ciJ"~'« ~.~l.ii ~?f_ a ~?~" l ~~ r r* w' r ;`".^.C ~hE- (:3~C.1:J~1,1%i. ~~.;.~U ,)I ;1,'l': I_C'i7}C~C:3.]~~ {.:I )C. ~>Lt~:.C~1~1.S1C)1~, ~~YS~" 1T~1~17C~i.C~` lJ`.3~: {)1 ~1?F St.Cla€;~~CC?:'11Y~1Gai ~1~;. !J ?S)I~ ~~~{~ SiQ1,ct~~.. 17.68.100 - llensitp bogus. A. Within a PUD, the planning commission may authorize an increase in total number of dwelling units of up to five percent above doe number of units (rounded up to the next full dwelling unit} otherwise authorized by the density requirements of the zoning district. For an increase of dwelling units to be permitted the planning commission shall find that the development will contain distinctive qualities or overall excellence ir>. the areas of the site planning, architectural design, landscaping, solar orientation and recreational opportunities, which will provide a superior living environment and enhance the general area or neighborhood. S. l+"or purposes of this section, residential base densities to which the allowable percentage adjustments may be applied are: zoning District Maximum Density of PUD Gross Acre R-L Residential Iow density 2.0 dwelling units per acre R-1-( residential single-family 6.0 dwelling units per acre R-1-8 Residential single-family S.~ dwelling units per acre R-1-10 Residential single-fatrsily 4.Q dwelling units per acre R-2 Residential two-family 12.© dwelling units per acre * Before five percent density bonuses, if applicable. iridin~: The development of the FxJB will be consistent :with the density of the .~ ~..~ san~le farmily district, and will be compatible with the adiacent development and zoning districts. 1.'~.~8.110 - Coinuaoxa alren sgaee. A. Open areas may be accepted as common open space within a planned unit development if these requirements are met: 1. The location, shape, size and character of the common open space is suitable for the planned development; 2. The common open space is appropriate to the scale and character of the planned unit development, considering the PUD's size, density, expected population, topography and the number az~d type of dweLli.ngs provided; 3. Common open space will be improved for its intended use, although common open space containing natural features worthy of preservation. may be left unimproved. The buildings, structures and improvements in the common open space shall be appropriate to the uses proposed for the common open space; 4. The development schedule coordinates the improvement of the common. open. space and the construction of buildings and other structures in the common open space with the construction of residential dwellings in the planned unit development; CCSN W. lnc. Page 15 of 21 '_, ~~jl7ite I~at~~~:l'lat;r<ed !:et-elE:~t„~t,t f^,~,43L;;t h~fJl?!i'!C:,~~:~3f?N! -~~ ~, ~u ,~{ a a < r.ii.j ~~~ri ii ui ~~: i.t, vrC Vii. ~~ ~~~ '~ '~ !J~,?r!C~Ii i~e'l~e!np~Jleflt, II1C ~ ~`~ 4 F 5. if buildings, structures ar other improvements are to be made in the common open space, the developer provides a bond or other adequate assurance that the buildings, structures and atEzer irr~provements have been completed according to the development plan. l3. Land shown on the final development plan as common open space shalt be conveyed under one of the fallowing options at planning commission discretion: 1. To a pubfac agency which agrees to maint2.in the common open space and any buildings, structures or other improvements which have been placed on it; 2. To an association of owners ar tenants, created as a nonprofit corporation under the laws of the state, which shall adopt and impose articles of incorporation and bylaws and adopt and impose a declaration of covenants and restrictions on the common open space that is acceptable to the planning commission as providing for the continuing care of the space. Such an association. shalt be formed and continued for the purpose of maintaining the common open space. Common open space not conveyed to a public agency shall be in addition to and not in lieu of the land dedication or fee required in Chapter 15.20. C. Common open space may only be put to uses specked in the final development plan. No change of use allowed by az3nendment may be considered as a waiver of any of the covenants limiting the use of common open space areas. All rights to enforce these covenants against any use permitted are expressly reserved. D. If common open space is not conveyed to a public agency, the covenants governing the use, improvement and maintenance of common open space shall authorize the city to enforce their provisions, Finding: The Open Spam will be conveyed io 'Lhe Ci~~ - ii sn required - or G~~iii be retained and managed av the riomeowners ~ssociatior ~V~r3r`:i}~1c::~zYtC)TL. fi~~.f; ~]~;:1t~~~~f;d C?TCt`t Sp~?C'U5 ;~r1~i f.I~: rt,~ xi~'cit1 ck'c~~ rS.lci?1~~~~.C~ ~Ji- ~.'~~'!E' _ ~ a 1~'.68.I.2t) - Generat ca':aditian.s. In permitting a new PLJD, the planning commission may impose, iIi addition to those standards and. requirements expressly specified by this chapter, cnnditions which it finds necessary to avoid a detrimental environmental impact and to otherwise protect the best interest of the surrounding area or the community as a whole. Those conditions xnay include, but are not limited to, the follou~zng: Finding: Condiiions n. i.'n~°ou~i~ ~~ o~ ii:~fs seciion of the ordinance app~:y io commercial andfor ir~dustriai rUL3 deveio-Dmenis andiricreiore. are not a-nl~iicabie io finis request zor a resideniiai rvi~ subcii~ision. _~Iodif~ica.ticll. ~sc~z~~lr,.c~~-~ ~~~en s~a_ce ~~~il~. be Darned ar}.d n~Qira.t~~ined ray [inn ~ac~f ~e;~~~~7~rcrs asscc.~.~l~ia~z. C', (;~N W _ lt1c. 1'a~e 1(~ ol~ 21 1~rl3ite Ilati~~}~ l'lanr,ed [?evE!o„r~ent;~~i".lG'It PJ!rlt,yE!r!C:/~"I'l()h) '- x ' l eLiI1C$23 DEVelapT[7e37t, 1T1C ~' .,"ic~.~ ~~ '" ~- ~ ~' ~' Z r .68.I3Q -Residential conditions. Planned residential. developments raay have the following conditions attached: A, Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, recreational facilities shall be installed as may be required by the planning commission; B. Pedestrian movement upon the site shall be encouraged and separated frazn vehicular traffic through a comprehensive system of paved pathways; C. Development for residential and accessozy uses shall be at a specified maximum density; D. Off-street parking shall be provided at the ratio specifled in Section 17.64A40 and for visitor parking, one space per four units; and for recreational vehicle storage, one space per seven units. Vehicles shall park only in designated areas or stalls. There shall be rEa paz•l~ing within turnaround areas or main driveways. Visitors' parking shall be clearly identified and maintained; 1;. Boats, trailers, campers and similar recreational vehicles may be stared in designated areas only. The permanency, security and visual screening of a recreational vehicle storage area shall be assured by the construction of permanent walls not less than seven feet in height; F. "'l'ot lots" shall be provided in addition to adult recreational facilities for the year-round use of children residing on the site. The planning coxxzmission shall specify the number of tot lots required and the type of construction for play equipment; G. if units in the project are rented, the owner of the subject propez-ry shall provide for the regular and continuing maintenance of all stzuctures, open space and landscaped areas anal all off street parking and maneuvezing areas. An agreement guaranteeing such continuing maintenance and giving lien rights to the city in the event of lack of said maintenance shall be submitted to the city attorney for his review and approval prior to the issuance of any building permits; H. if units are sold individually (condominiums), a homeowners' association shall be established for the purpose of permanently maintaining all of the subject property, includixzg common areas and individual units, buildings and structures, and a homeowners' association agreement guaranteeing such a maintenance by individual owners and providing for lien rights and reimbursement to the city for any costs incuz•red thereby shall be submitted to the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits; 1. A bicycle path system shall be provided that is either integrated into the pedestrian sidewalk system or designed as a separate system and appropriately marked and signed. The system should include bicycle access to all dwelling units, and such facilities should connect to the city's bicycle system plan. Bicycle racks shall be provided for residents and visitors and other features that may be required. ~i ~d~n~: ~~~v neccssarv conditiaris of annrovai will be biaced on i:his nroiect. elYagtes ~.~.1~ ~~»'~~~ ~~~nr~ ~fi~. ~,Q.OI.Q - Sutzrnissios~ of application.--1~'iling fee. The applicant shall submit an application and tentative plan together a~lih irr~pravement plans and other supplementary material as z~ay be required to indicate the development plan and shall submit ten copies to the city together with a filing fee defined in the city's adopted planning application fee schedule. The diagrams submitted shall consist of ten copies at the scale specified in Section 15.10.020 and one copy in aneight-and-one-half-inch by eleven-inch format Finding: This application fora 91 lot residential PUD and tentative subdivision is accompanied by the current filin~_ foes and 'che rec~_uired can_ ies of the Tentative elan. l~'.1:~:.:1. (~a.€'~~lll,~f3_. E_A.CS~ ^.T~~}E~~C2~~tJ ~L l.fi a A•{~:I.A~~.£-CA[.1L}lA t.)). ElYA ~~J~.1lLJ~lL.~Z 3~+i 1.! ~2~L• ~~tfYiL= f~~ Sri?l 1c ,`~Y _T~;~#c,:~~ z.~°iir. th e n~;~;->%c~F~r`ctll Ce€; sci~~-::i~.tie ~~~.G~;d ~3~_~ ,: f~~.e ~~~~Tiser:~ 1 t> is c€: ~_~y, E,, s cl~sNw. Inc. Page 17 oi~21 White 1-tawk 1'la€i€led fJevelolsment (Ml~J(U~R ~~f()[)li=tC:/~~1`I(1N) :. i '~ _~- =~~ vii ~ ns ~~-~µl n,-.;,~f nA~=t~;; ~€ 1"uncap ilevei0pzr~enf, inc ~~ r ~ ry`~s~ ~` ~. 16.10.015 -Application anti. review--Fees. Applications anal review thereof shall conforrr- to the provisions of Chapter 1.24 and ail applicable city ordinances and laws of the state. All costs of administrative and legal staff time costs, plans checks, construction inspection, preparation of agreements, in excess of the filing fee, shall be borne by the applicant and paid upon billing by city. Failure to pay such. costs as billed shall constitute grounds fot denial of final plat approval or building permits. Finding: Any necessary additional fees required for processing and approval of this broiect will be borne by the a>ab_ titans, Duncan Development. Inc. and Baia. ubon demand. 16.10.020 -Scale. The tentative plan shall be drawn on a sheet eighteen by twenty-four inches in size or a multiple thereof at a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet or, for areas over one hundred acres, one inch equals two hundred feet, and shall be clearly and legibly reproduced. Finding: The tentative plans and preliminary utility drawings are drafted at the reauested scale and reproduced on ~4 x 36 inch sheets. which are a muiti~ale of i $" by 24". . -~c~~fifi.c,atic~~: A nee=,~ .plan s°~. ~€as f~eer~ ~~t3~r~~~(te~~ ti~Ti~l~. it~5.s applicat-ic~rl, 16,10.U30 -General ixxforna.ation. The following general information shall be shown on or included with. the tentative plan: A. Proposed name of the subdivision. This name must not duplicate or resemble the name of another subdivision. i.n the county; Finding: The project name - WhiteHawk - is not a duplicate of any other subdivision in the county. B. Date, northpoint, and state of drawing; C. l.acation of the subdivision by section, township, and range, and a legal description sufficient to defuse the location and boundaries of the proposed tract or the tract designation or other descz i.ption according to the records of the county assessor; D. Names and addresses of the owner or owners, applicant and engineer or surveyor; Finding: The data requested in the three preceding items is included on the tentative plat drawings. E. A title report: indicating all interests of record in the property which is the subject of the application. Finding: A title report for the subject property is included with the application backa~e materials. I?r~:>:l."t.il('-c~.(it~I"~~.. t''. (:."=t.~L z't"x~J?"i. `3: c7-S ~~aC7~,~Ii,iC'C. `il:i .3'€,:: (:1;;~1~t~_(c,~.~:) ,lit ~1_iC)F1. ('-- iFs,10.040 _ Ezzisting t:anclitions. The following existing conditions shall be shown on the tentative plan: A. The location, widths and narrzes of all existing or platted streets or other public ways within or adjacent to the tract, easements, railroad rights-of-u=ay and such other important features within ar adjacent to the tract as may be required by the city; t;E~l~lW_ ant. f'a~e 1$ 0121 1uh3tel-[a~~~k3'lannedllevetoUmejtt{MAJUKMUE_)fI,IC.A~t~it}Nl t ~~,k -~- ~,.. 7 , v.v~vii ii~ ~` 7 .t r ~ 7 vnncan llevelaprnent, lnc ~, i ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~- ~, `~~ ~~~ ~. # Finding: The preliminary design drawings illustrate ail the pertinent exisitng conditions on and adiacent to the bronert~~. ~. Contour lines related to same established bench nxark or other datum as approved by the city when the city determines that the nature of the topography or size of the subdivision. reckuires such data. Contour lines shalk have the following minimum intervals: 1. Two foot. contour intervals for ground slopes less than five percent; 2. Five foot contour intervals for ground slopes exceeding five percent; Finding: TOUO~rat~lllC COntOLlr IineS are SI1oWn Ori the prelimina~•v utiiitV bean. C. The location of at least one temporary bench mark within the plat baundaz•ies; Finding: A temporary benchmark is identified an the preliminary utility plan. D. loocation and direction of all watercourses and drainage systems; Finding: Preliminary storm drainage design is shown on the utility plan. E. Natural features, such as rock outcroppings, marshes and wooded areas; Finding: There are no natural #'eatures of significance on the subject property. F. Existing uses of the property, including location of all existing structures which the subdivider proposes to leave an the property after platting; Finding: The developer does not intend to keep any of the existing structures as part of the new development. G. The location within the subdivision and in the adjoining streets and property of existing sewers and water rrrairzs, culverts and drain pipes, and all other existing ar proposed utilities to be used on the property to be st€bdivided and invert elevations of sewers at points of probable connections; Finding: Existing and proposed utility lines are shown on the preliminary utility plan. H. Zoning on and adjacent to the tract. Finding: Zoning of adjacent parcels is shown on an excerpt of the zoning map of the city -included with the application package. i~%c~<iiti.~ati~)li: r`-! ~;€;~`s~~:t`~~. ~-r,~~~ ~i. t:1~e ~~it;y ~~Tas i~~ciu~~:d ~~i~i~ t.h~~ oz'iginai applicat~c~~x. 16.1U.U~€~ - Atic€itional, in.farmat`ioxr. The following additiona3. information shall also be included on the tentative plan: A. Streets, showing location, width, proposed naz~nes, approximate grades and approximate radii of curves and the relationship of all streets to any projected streets as shown of any development plan adapted by the city; CESN W. lnc. I'a~e ] 9 of 21 white Hawk k'lan.t~ed i?eve[optnent [1Vll~.lOlZ N1UU11'ICA"1`i(?~#) ~ ,~-~`" r~ ` , a ., v r.. v..x , Duncan %~eveiopment, inc ~., >.~,,~.~~,~! s ~ ,'~a ~~~~ Finding: Preliminary street design and street sections are shov~m on the preliminary utility Glans. ~u'lfii~'tJJ.t;u~:lt).T; i~~`?.~: 1:3.~:7_t1S }s:t~:)z"~?.3.~.i%-S:~ «'1.1.11 t.~-.l.JB .~.j:x~~3-e~L:LI(31"3. s:..~~L?st,: f:~",t'. r.i~.{3F~l.~lf:'C1 B. Iraseznents, showing the width and purpose; Finding: Necessary utility easements will be shown on the final plat. G. lots, showing approximate dimensions, area of smallest lot or lots and utility easements and building setbacl: lines to be proposed, if any; D. Sites, if any, p~~aposed for purposes other than dwellings; E. Area in square footage of each lot and the average lot area. Finding: Approximate dimensions of each lot, area of each lat, and proposed setbacks are shown on the breliminarv -plat and defined in an earlier section of the f ndings. The area proposed for the Open Space is shown on the preliminary plat. 7.6.1g.U6(3 _ Partial cYevelogr~ent. When the property to be subdivided contains only part of the tract awned or contro]led by the applicant, the city may require a development plan of a layout for streets, numbered Lots, blocks, phases of developznen.t, and other improvements i1i the undivided portion, indicating inter-relationship with the portion sought to be divided. The city shall have authority to require That any adjacent parcel or parcels owned ar controlled by the applicant but nat included in the prapased subdivision boundaries be included in the development whenever inclusion of such parcel or parcels would be an appropriate extension of the develaprnen# and in the best interests of the public, considering the development plan and the relationship between. the surrounding area and the area of proposed development. Finding: The preliminary plat illustrates that the entire subject property is proposed for development, there are no portions available for future development. There is a mall rerrinant of the property left over after the realignment of ~ebhard and P~eebe Road, but that parcel is not suitable far any residential development. ,1~.1CP.CD'l'4S - ~elalaraate~ry' ire.fQrrrt.ation. Any of the following information may be requixed by the city and if it cannot be shown practicably on the tentative plan, it shall be submit#ed in separate statements accompanying the tentative plan: A. A vicinity map shaving all existing subdivisions, streets art~d unsubdivided land ownerships adjacent to tl-~e proposed subdivision and showing haw proposed streets may be connected to existatng streets; Finding: A copy of the approved Master Plan for the area is included with the application package. The Master Plan shows adjacent properties and a preliminary street plan providing major connections throughout the area. ~~~.t:s~l.t.fl~::~tJ.:lC3~~t; ;~,~ t1i~',:5 - ; ~ t':t ~"~i~ t.A~i '1 ~' C)-. ,~.,s;` ~~~~ s~_ L`.;.. ~'~c. `;i•`cts `:u ti 1i."t.i.~. ~. 1. r.~ i 1~i. ~..i ~, i.fJ~;.n! .`1'~, F3. praposed deed restrictions in outline form; t~indin~: No deed restrictions are proposed at this time. C1~5)~ W_ inc. Page 20 of 21 White i-ia~lk 1'Lazznec! ~evelol~at~et~t (MAJUEZ MUl~llalC;A'I'lUN) ~ a-" a r 17uncan veveiopment, inc ,~ i k, - a ~~ . ~: y=;r ~,. •~µ?~~ a ~~ ~. ,y. G, Approximate centerline profiles showing the proposed finished grade of all stE~eets, inducing the extensions far a reasonable distance beyond the ti.rnits of tl~e proposed subdivision; Finding: Centerline profiles will be provided during the construction document production phase of tho project development. 'l~he area is reasonably flat and transitions between streets is not anticipated to cause design concerns. D. The approxirrtate location and size of all proposed and existing water and sewer lines and .storm drainage systems. Finding: The preliminary sanitary system and starn~ drainage system is shown on the preliminary utility drawing. l~,~odific~tiorl; fine .~:~ apc:sed utilil:~r plan has 't.~eci~ upciaie;~1 ~:<~ refie~ ~ the n~odific~_tion, 16. ~.O.a80 -Tentative gtan approval. Approval of the tentative plan shall not constitute final acceptance of the final plat of the proposed subdivision or partition for recording; however, approval of the tentative plan shall be binding upon city far the purpose of the approval of the final plat if the final plat is in substantial cornpIian.ce with the tentative plan and any conditions of approval thereof. The action of the council in approving the tentative plan shall be noted on two copies thereof, including reference to any attached documents describing any conditions. One copy of the tentative plan shall be returned to the applicant and the other retained iri the city files with a mezxtoxanduxo setting Earth the action of the council. x.6.2(3.090 - Conditions an teutatcEre plan aggrovaL The city zxxay attach to any tentative plan approval given under this chapter specific conditions deemed necessary in the interests of the public health, safety or welfare,.......: Finding: Any necessary conditions of approval will be placed on this proiect. ~": << ~ ~ d Ys c b ~ t:li~: propo~°~ .t~:~ec~.ific:atfor~ t-neets the iv f'i't .~~tll,ti ~_C)_2: l~'~si, £7I`3. ~~1".i C; anal 1..: c~ OJT,; Fla~~~neC 1~;:;~eopzx~c~~~t C~~~i~.e~°i ~., GI:SN W. Inc. 1'aae 2l of 21 Jun 11 2CIQ7 12:2~PM HP LRSErzJET FRX fish Cr~~k f~ssoci~t~s, Inc, ~, F~vircxxnxltal ark GcKxrx:l•rrlical CcNiuFhants June $, 2007 Connie Clune Community Planner City at Central Point 1~0 South Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 Re; Vtilhite hiawk Development 718 Beebe Road Central Point, Oregon Project Number 1141-00 bear Ms. Clune~ _ - -.,, l .1 The portion of the subject property being presented for use as an RV facility contains levels of arsenic exceeding those altawed by Oregon Department of environmental Qualify (DDQ) standards for residential use. Ash Creek Associates, a private consulting firm representing Duncan Development, has obtained DI~Q approval far use of this area of the property as an RV facility, assr~ming that a soil management plan is prepared to guide the appropriate t~andiing of the sail during development and future use, and that the RV facility provides an effective cover (e.g., is primarily paved) for this portion of the site. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, r•-~ f ~ ~ -~ Amanda t.. Spencer R.G., P,iw, Principal Hyd~~geol gist ~fjf5 ~nut~xwcil .~licn [S~aE^.varr~ Suitc F05 t1~lftlatlri~ C7tcgr;i> 97fl~.5 ~.filn {5n3} Q?d .~7UA`I1octlurld ?Si)_i} 9:ti- 47017 Fax Vl~V W%1i~~il'lK~i355'.>Cii7I[~c:[;!n Jan 29 2QQ? 1 ]. ; 4QRh3 HP ~f~SERJET FRS p , 2 ~~ ~~ Departmetrt of Etia~>irnnmeutal Quality Western Region Eu~cne ~f#ice 1 Z fl3 l,irtcnls~ Sfrcct, Suite 2l f) X'L:oclonK~ibn~csski,Gaverttor EuYC710,OR 97~f}1 tS41)685-7x38 R~C~iV~p !A~l25 x~r r~x~sa.iabs~-~ssa "T"i'1' {S4 i) 687-SCE13 .Tanuary l4, 2007 RE:1CP Results Report, SCSI 4529 Mike Dune P.Q. Box S6S6 Central F'oint, Oregon 9'7502 Dear Mar. Duncan, .. ~---~_ __ ._, _..~...___ __ ~ _ _. _.._. _.~...w`------- ..~ . _.. ._ . .. DEQ received your Draft Independent Cleanup Program iZesiil~s Report for 718 Beebfr Road ri~ ~~' ~~~~~ ~~ Central Point, Oregon. The report tivas dated Qctober 17, 200G and we received this report on October 20, 2Q06. It is our understanding that you submitted the draft report to allow DEQ the opportunity to provide-interim feedback on the overall .cleanup process; but not for DEQ tv approve the remedial action prior to implementation. This letter provides our site-specific consultation on the draft report findings under our Independent ~learfup Program {lCP) agreement with you. It does not constitute acceptance or approval of the rernedia~ action proposed.in your draft report. If you decade tk~at you ~vould.like I]BQ~to se~'ect and apgrove.a remedial actionpribr to implementation, please contact me and we can discuss the additional steps that would be required.. DEQ Comments an Draft Report 1 } DEQ recortsrnends that the hot-spot determination for Area A not rt/ly on controversial adjustments for arsenic bioavailability bu# instead relies on a hot-spot level using an assumed 100% bioavailability ofarsenic. Also note that arsenic's hot-spot level is 14Qx the acceptable risk level (not 1 ~ as stated in the report}. The default hot-spot level for ._~... ~. arsenic in resideritta~araas is 39 nag/le~. ~ A.s~l Creels Environmfntal could calculate a site- specific hot-spot level far an appropriate. future user and apply it to Area A. As long as soils within Area A are less than 100x the acceptable risk level for this use, then ahot- spotwould not be identified. If a hot-spot is identified, then your evaluations for cleanup options should be recf~nsidered given DEQ's preference for treating hot-spot levels of contamination. Vie cart assist you with developing exposure assumptions for appropriate future scenario upon your request :.2}: Basexl on ti~e:drafl. report,:it appears~the reirtoval depth should b.e slightly beyond 2. flirt. ~~ _ ~ . ., areas, orTP-12 and TP-~13 in order:to reach the cleanup level. ~nfficier~t confirmation saintling shotl~d be conducted, to document the removal in Area B is complete. ~~~ QED Lx,F Jan ~8 20Q7 11:~QRM HP LRSEftJET FRX DuncAn 1119!07 Page 2 .. ~: ~..j~ .. tti:'. :'F '.f ~ . 3} Some sail satnplcs in Area C contain arsenic that exceeds the regional background applied at this site. 'W"e used a statistical method to estimate an exposure level from all Area C site data. Our statistical method concentration (90% upper canf~dence limit on the mean) could- represent a reasonable, yet protective, exposure concentration within the area of individual residential p~operiies in Area C~ assuming the variation in a~r~er3c ~ . concenfrations across Area C is homogeneous. Tl~e 90°lo UCf, concentration in Area C is less than 7 mglkg (the regional background applied to this site). In order for you to use a statistical concentration to represent Aron C (instead of individual sample results), your ICP report should provide sufficient basis to conclude the variation of arsenic concentrations in Area C is homogeneous. 4) We prefer to see a demarcation Layer (e.g., geotextile fa#~ric) placed between the contaminated site soil and the cap in Area A. Contingent upon no identification of liot-spots; and consideration ax-d adequate response to our . comments, the cleanup process described in the draft report for the Beebe property appears to be consistent with nur rules far cleanup sites. p.3 Please note that a cap in Area A will need to lie maintained. An Easement & Equitable Servitude (E&ES) would need to be placed on the property deed for this area. The EBcES would restrict cap disturbance beneath the demarcation layer, require proper handling and disposal of contamizated sail if it is necessary to work beneath the cap, and rvauld also rec}uire that tho cap be regularly inspected axed rriaintained. Having an E~r.ES an_the property deed necessitates that we grant a condifiional no furtliei~ action. We hope'that this consultation is helpful. Ws look forward to receiving the final ICP closure report far this site. Iri the interim, feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Bost Regazds, -~_.. Angie Qbery Project Manager Cc: Max Rosenberg (DEQ-~141R} Amanda Spencer (Ash-Creek Associates) SCSI File 4529 ~~~ nrtrx~ ~~"TA~HN~E~lT "" ~- ~- k~, , Boh Pierce, Director Public Works Deparfinenf h`-'`'"` Stephanie Wooieff, Engineering tech I! PC] 1 NT .,, PUBLIC WDRKS STAFF REPORT Jane 7, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: Sixty-one unit subdivision for 37-2W-02, Tax Lat 2700 Applicant: Duncan Development Inc., 25 South Front Street, Central Point, OR 97502 Zoning: R-1-6 Traffic: Based an the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE} Trip Generation Manual, asixty-one residential partition will generate appraxizxzately ~ 1.G 1 peak hour trips (PHT}. The City of Central Point typically requires traffic studies for any development that generates more than 25 PHT. The East Pine Corridor Traffic Study which studied E. Pine Street, Hazxzrick Raad and a portion of Beebe Road was completed in 2005 and incorporated this development within its analysis. The improvezxzents entail Gebhard Road being extended to the South and a future bridge over Bear Creek that would extend Beebe Road to the West. Additionally a new traffic signal at the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road maybe warranted in the future. The traffic analysis was based on the fact that both Gebhard and Beebe Roads are widened to full collector status. The developer has agreed to widen Gebhard and Beebe Roads to full half street, plus ten improvements with two travel lanes, a bike lane, landscape strip and sidewalks in front of the subject properties. Developer has also agreed to contribute monetarily '/2 the costs to installation of a bicycle/pedestrian path along the North side of Beebe Road in collaboration with the developer of Gebhard Village PUD. . Existing Infrastructure: Water: There is an existing sixteen inch waterline in Beebe Road Storm Drain: There is an existing forty eight inch storm drain line in Beebe Road. Street Section: Beebe and Gebhard Roads are county roads paved to twenty-six feet in width, with curbside ditches. Engineering and Development Plans and Permits: The Central Point Public Works Department is charged with management of the City's infrastructure, including streets, waterworks, and storm water drainage facilities. Iza general, the Department's "Standard Specifications and Uniform Standard Details far Public Works Construction" shall govern how public facilities are to be constructed. The Developer is encouraged to obtain the latest version of these specifzcations from the Public Works Department. 140 South Third Street ~~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ 541.664.3321 ~° Fax 541.664.6384 In general, the plan submittal shall include plan and pz-ofzle for streets, water, starin drainage and sanitary sewers, storm drainage calculations, storm drainage basin znap, erosion control plan, utility and outside agency notifications and approvals. The pla~l may also include applicable traffic studies, legal descriptions and a traffic control plan. A Public Works Permit will only be issued after the Department Director approves the final construction drawings. After approval, the fees associated with the development will be calculated and attached to the public works permit. All fees are required to be paid in full at the tune the Public Works Permit is issued, except Public Works Inspection fees. After project completion during the final plat application process, the Public Works Inspector will calculate the appropriate amount of inspection time to assess the developer. Before the fnal plat application is processed tl~e developer must pay the z-elevant inspections fees and bond for any uncompleted improvements {as determined by the Public Works Director}, Conditions of Approval: i. Right-of way Dedication: The Developer shall dedicate twenty feet of frontage on Gebhaz•d Road and ten feet an Beebe Road for widening of the roads to Collector standards. 2. Gebhard and Beebe Road Inaproveinents: Developer will be responsible for half street plus ten feet for the Beebe and Gebhard Road frontages. This consists of constructing curb, gutter, and sidewalk and additional paving width to Gebhard and Beebe Roads. The Developer will be eligible far SDC reimbursement for the upsizing portion of the road improvezxzent. 3. Open Space: All open space provided shall be privately owzaed and maintained. A landscape and irrigation plan for each area shall be provided for each open space area. 4. Water Line ~- Developer shall construct atwelve-inch water line from Beebe Road through the proposed development to the Northern Property line adjoining the proposed Gebhard Village PUD. The developer will be eligible for SDC reizrzbursement for upsizing the water line above the needs of the development. S. Beebe Road -Engineering Plans: Prior to final plat approval the Developer shall pay to the City, for preparation of engineering design plans for Beebe Road, an amount of money equivalent to 1/2 the cost of constructing.an asphalt bike/pedestrian path along the northerly side of Beebe Road from the easterly limits of White Hawk Estates PUD to Haxnz-ick Road. 6. Gradin Pg ennit: The City of Central Point Building Department requires grading pezmits for all new subdivisions. Developer will need to provide a valid grading plan as part of constnzction documents and receive a permit from the building department prior to construction. 7. Street Tree Plan: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for approval by the Public Works Director, a landscape plan for the areas designated for landscape rows. The plan shall 744 South Third Street ~~- Centro! Point, OR 97542 .541.fi64.3321 -- Fax 54.6&4.6384 include constz-uction plans, irrigation plans, details and specifzcations for the trees to be planted within the landscape rows. Plantings shall comply with Municipal Code Suction 12.36. Tree plantings shall have at least a 1 %2" tz-unk diameter at the time of installation. All street trees sha11 be irrigated with an automatic underground irrigation system. The current site plan does not indicate trees planted at 20-40 feet on center. All street trees azad landscape row landscaping shall be completed prior to the issuance of building pezxxzits for the final tlzrec homes within the development. 144 Soufh Third Street ~ Central Point, OR 97502 ~ 541.664.3327 -• Fax 547.664.6384 June 11, 2007 Connie Clune Planner City of Central Point White Hawk PUD Major Modifications #07119 The location of Fire Hydrants will need Fire District approval. Mark Moran DFM ~~~,~~~~ s~w~~~~ ~~ ~ June 12, 2007' ROGUE VALLEY SEWER SERVICES Location: 138 Wcsl Vitas Itaa[i, Central Yoinl, {3R - t4lails~r~~ Aciclress: P.a }. 13crs 31311. Central ]'Hint. {)R 75{}2-GODS Tcl. (541} Gh4-63Q0. ~'[4x (Sql) Cfiq-1171 ~~°~aw.RVSS.us Connie Clone FAX 664-6384 City of Cent~'al Point Planning Dcpartn~ent 355 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Re: White Hawk PUD, File No. 07119 (ref File No. 05011) The original comments from Rogue Valley Sewer Services on June 20, 2005 are still valid. Feel free to call me if you have any questions regarding this project. Sincerely, ~ ~~ ~, ~ Carl Tappert, PE District Engineer K:ID/~'I'A1/1~enci es1Jf1 C011'LANNGIS i[ePlalaRe~~iew120061SIT2006-000-~2.doc rune 20, 2ao5 Ken Gerschler 1'~1X 664-63$4 City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Contra] Point, Oregon 97502 Re: White Hawk PUD, I+ile # 0501] Dear Ken, The subject peoper•ty is within the RVS service area and the Stormwater• Quality bour3dary managed by RVS. There is a public sewer main oz~ Beebe Road whid~ can serve a portion of the proposed development. The remainder of the devclopn~ent will z'equir•e a main line extension from the existing sewer main at the intersection of Green Valley Road and Gebhard Road. There is currently a proposal for a new subdivision to tl~e Nor-lh which will also eequire a main line extension from this location. The developer should contact the adjacent property owner to coordinate sewer construction work. This extension must be designed artd constzucted in accordance with RVS standards. The existing sewer main on the Northerly property line does not meet RVS standards and cannot be used to support additional development. Kogue Valley Sewer Services requests that approval of the proposed development be subject to the following conditions: The sanitary sewer system must be designed and constnrctcd in accordance with RVS standards and must be accepted as a public systcrn by RVS prior to final plat approval. The applicant must demonstrate compliance with RVS stormwater quality requirements prior to final plat approval. if you need additional information, please call me at G6~1-63ao. Sincerely, Carl Tapper, P.E. District Engineer K:IDATAIAGENCIESICENTPTIPLANNGIPUD10501I-PUD WHITEHAWK.DOC City of Central Point, Oregon 340 So.Third 5t, Central Point, Or 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541,664.6384 www.ci.central-point.or.us ~- ~ENTRAL Po~NT ~TT~~H~fI~NT ".. Building Department. Lois f7e$enedetti, Building Official BUfLDING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT DATE: 06/14/07 TO: Planning Department Planning file: FROM: Building Depaz•tment SUBJECT: White Hawk -PUD Name: Mike Duncan Address: 25 South Front St. City: Central Point State: Or. Zip Code: 97502 Property Description: 37S-2W-02-T.L. 2700,2701. PURPOSE: The staff report is to provide information to the Planning Commission and the Applicant regarding City Building Department requirements and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed project. This is not a plan review. This report is pz•eliminary and compiled solely for use by the Central Point Planning Commission. 1 City of Centrai Point, Oregon 144 So.Third St., Central Point, Or 97502 547.664.3327 Fax 54f.664.6384 www.ci.centra!-point.or.us CENTRAL POINT Building Department Lois DeBenedetti, Building Official BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: 1. Applicant, agent and contractors must comply with all cui~ent State of Oregon adopted codes, and apply for all permits through the Central Point Building Department. 2. Tf a private storm drain system is proposed it must be reviewed and a permit issued by the Central Point Plumbing Department. 3. Any private street lighting must be reviewed and permitted by the Central Point Electrical Department. 4. Provide the building department with a Geotechnical report as required by OSSC Appendix J and chapter 1 S of the OSSC. A written report of the investigation shall include, but need not be limited t©, the following information: a. A plot plan showing the location of alI test borings and/or excavations. b. Descriptions and classifications of the materials encountered. c. Elevations of the water table, if encountered. d. Recommendations for foundation type and design criteria, including bearing capacity, provisions to mitigate the effects of expansive soils, provisions to mitigate the effects of liquefaction and soil strength, and the effects of adjacent Ioads. e. When expansive soils are present, special provisions shall be provided in the foundation design and construction to safeguard against damage due to expansivEness. Said design shall be based on geotechnical recommendations. S. Grading/excavation permits are required in accordance with OSSC Appendix J and chapter 1 S and regarding any fill material placed on the site. Fills to be used to support the foundation of any building or structure shall be placed in accordance with accepted engineering practices. A soil investigation report, and a report of satisfactory placement of f ll (including special inspections of placement of fill and compaction) acceptable to the Building Off cial, shall be submitted prior to final of the grading/excavation permit. Building permits will not be issued until grading/excavation permit is approved and finalled. Exception: 1. The upper 1.S foot of fill placed outside of public nights-of--way. 2. The upper 1.S foot of fill that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. 2 Attacltmezit "J'> FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW File No: 07119 INTRODUCTION In the Matter of a Major Modifications application for changes to White Hawk Planned Unit Development. The application is to review amendments to the July 5, 2005 approved tentative plan, File No. 05411. The design znodifzcatiozzs are proposed as a necessary elezxz.ent to achieve the voluntary clean up progz-aza~ that address discovered ground eontazninates in the northeast coiner or old orchard area of the project site. White Hawk Planned Unit Develapznent is located in the R-1-6 Residcntial Single-Family coning district az~d identified on the Jackson County Assessor's neap as 37S 2W O2, Tax Lots 2700 and 2'701. The proposed project area 718 Beebe Road is located north and east of the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road (Applicant; Duncan Development, Agent: Matt Scheidegger, CESNW, Inc). CPMC 17.09.300 Majar naodifeations. A. Major Modification Defined. The coftununity development director shall determine that a major modification(s) is required f one or more of the changes listed belotiv are pf°oposed: 1. A change in land use; 2. An increase in density by more tlzaiz ten percent, provided the resulting density does not exceed that allowed by the land use district,- 3. A change in setbacks or lot coverage by more than ten percent, provided the resulting setback or lot coverage does not exceed that allowed by the land use district; ~. A change in tl2e type and/or location of access~vays, drives or parking areas affecting off-site traffic; S. An increase in the floor of°ea proposed for nonresidential use by r~zore than fifteen percent where previously specified; 6. A reductior2 of more than ten percent of the area reserved for common open space; or 7. Change to a condition of approval, or a change similar to subsections (A)(1) through (6) of this section, that could have a detrimental impact on adjoining properties. The city planning aff cial shall have discretion irz determining detrimental impacts warranting a major modification. Finding: It has been determined that a change in the type and location of accessways, drives or parking areas affecting off site traffic as descz-ibed in CPMC 17.09.300 (A)(4} was submitted with this application as a modification. The western accessway from Gebhard Road into the site, will be relocated approximately 350 feet to the north. The original Kestrel Avenue street stub to Tax Lot 200, the northerly parcel, has been removed.. Connectivity for the adjacent northez-n property is provided by irz east-west street design as part of the Gebhard Village pz'aject. Page 1 of 10 Finding: It has been determined that the zxzodifled plan provides a coznznon area designed as RV parking and storage withizl recreation vehicle garages. This redesign element is an increase in the floor area proposed far nonresidential use by more than fifteen percent where previously specifzed as described in CPMC 17.09.300 (A)(5}. Finding: It has been determined that the open space park has been converted to RV storage/parking to facilitate appropriate environmental mitigation measures of the residual agricultural contamination identifzed within tlae project site. Clean up of the arsenic necessitates soil cappizag of the impacted area. Finding: The covered RV parking is common area and the exclusive use of the residents. This modification changes by mare than ten percent of the area reserved for comznan open space as described in CPMC 17.09.300 (A}{6). Conclusion: It has been determined that a major modifications application is required since one or mare of the changes listed in CPMC 17.09.300 (A} are proposed. CPMC 17.09.360 B. Major Modification Applications; Approval Criteria. An applicant may request a major rrrodifrcation using a Type II or Type .III review procedure, as follows: I. Upon the community development director determining that the proposed modification is a major nrodificatian, tlae applicant shall submit an application form, filing fee and narrative, and a site plan using the same plan for•n~at as in the original approval. The community develaprnent director may require other relevant information, as necessary, to evaluate the request. 2. The application shall be subject to the same review procedure (Type II or III), decision-making body, and approval criteria used for tlae initial project approval, except that adding a conditional z.sse to an approved project shall be reviewed using a Type III procedure. 3. The scope of review shall be limited to the modification request. For° example, a request to modify a parking lot shall regz{ire site design review only for• the proposed parking tat and any changes to associated access, circulation, pathways, lighting, trees, and landscaping. Notice shall be provided in accordance with the applicable notice requirements for Type II or `type III procedures. 4. The decision-making body slzall approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application for major modification based on written findings on the criteria. Finding: The applicant submitted an application for review by the Planning Commission as a Type III major modification of the White Hawk Planned Unit Development in compliance with section 17.09.300 {B). Conclusion: Application cozxiplies 1' ~: 48.040 Criteria to grant ar cle~iy a PUS. A PUD shall be perraiitted, altered or denied in accordance with the standards anal procedures of this chapter°. In the case of a use existing prior to the effective date of the ar°dinance codified in this chapter; and classified in this cl2apter as a PUD, a change in the use or• in lot area, or ari alteration ofstr•z~ctur~e, shall conform with the requirements for Page 2 of 10 PUD use. to approve or• deny a PUD, the planning cornrnissiori shall,find 1•t~hether° or not the standards of this chapteY, including the following criteria are either rrxet, can be met by observance of conditions, oY ar'e rrOt applicable. (A). Tlaat the development of a harmonious, integrated plan justif es exceptions to the not•rnal requirerner2ts of this title; Finding: The applicant proposes using developzncnt standards that have been successfully implemented in other areas of the City, such as Twin Creeks. The subject site is ozae of a few remaining large undeveloped parcels within the Urban Growth Boundary of Central Point. White Hawk and the adjoining Gebhard Village developments will occur in a more harmonious fashion since these projects are in an area that is currently underdeveloped. Finding: The proposed modification has altered the original design of the PUD to facilitate environmental mitigation measures. The RV parking/storage conaznoza area design replaces the park designated on the original design. As noted above, the paved RV area is a mitigation measure that will act as a soil cap containing the cozatazaainants that have been found in this sectioza of the project site. '1`he applicant is working with Ash Creek Associates in preparing a soil zaaanagezaaent plaza that is approved by the DEQ far aza Independent Cleanup Pz-ogz-azn, ICI'. A letter fz•om Ash Creek is Attachment E of the staff report dated July 3, 2007. Finding: The residential character of the White Hawk PUD remains as evidenced by the lot configuration, walkable street design and landscape plan. Conclusion: The proposed modifications comply. I7.G8.040(I3). The proposal will be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of tlae city; Finding: The Comprehensive Plan recogzaizes the subject site as Single-Family Residential R-1-~ and is in the Single-family Residential R-1-6 zoning district. This a residential project designed for residential development. All other applicable ordinance provisions are addressed by the applicant's application and suppoz-ting documentation. Conclusion: The proposed modifications comply. 17.68.040(C). The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area; Finding: The project site is within the R-1-6 zoning district and has been in Urban Growth Boundary for a number of years. The size, location, design and operating characteristics of White Hawk will be compatible with developzncnt in the surrounding area. Vehicular linkage with the surrounding streets and adjacent parcels has been designed to facilitate traffic flows. Conclusion: The proposed modifications complies Pogo 3 of 10 1 ~ 68.040(D}. That tlae proponefzts of the PUD have demonstrated that they are~saatacially able to carry out the proposed pf°oject, that they intend to start cor2str~sction within six rnaftths of the frnal approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction ivitlain a reasonable time as determined by the contmissiar2,- Finding: Duncan Development has bec~l an active firm within the City of Central Point for several years and has three completed or in-progress residential projects of similar size and complexity. Conclusion: The applicant and the proposed modifications comply. 17.6$.040(E). That traffic congestion will not lilcely be created by the proposed develapntent or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traff c circulation and parking; Finding: Based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE} Trip Generation Manual, a sixty-one residential partition will generate approximately 61.61 peak hour trips (Pf1T}. The City of Central Paint typically requires traffic studies for any development that generates more than 25 PHT. The 2045 East Pine Corridor Traffzc Study that studied E. Pine Street, Hazxzrick Road and a portion of Beebe Road, incorporated this development within its analysis. The improvements entail Gebhard Road being extended to the South and a future bridge over Bear Creek that would extend Beebe Road to the West. Additionally a new traffic signal at the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road may be waz-ranted in the future. The traffic analysis was based on the fact that both Gebhard and Beebe Roads are widened to full collector status. Finding: The proposed modification provides for the western Gebhard Road access location to be relocated approximately 350 feet to the north along Gebhard. The proposed access is further from the intersection of Beebe Road and Gebhard Road pravidiz~g safe ingress and egress. Beebe Road and Gebhard Road are classified as collector streets in the 2004 Transportation plan for the City. They are planned as collectors and are designed to accairimodate the anticipated traffic as residential development occurs. Finding: The modified plan eliminated the alleys and the north Kestrel Avenue street stub of the original plan and the internal circulation has been maintained. Finding: The Gebhard Village project did desigri a through street that could provide access for this parcel {Tax Lot 200}. Finding: The modified proposal reduces the number of residential lots from 91 to 61 lots, thus reducing the number vehicular trips. Conclusion: The proposed modifications comply. Page 4 of 10 17.68.040(F). That conirnercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate cornr~aercial facilities of the type proposed; Finding: No cozxzmez-cial developzxzent is proposed as an element of this PUD. Conclusion; The proposed modifications comply. 17.68. D40(G). Tliat proposed industrial development will be efficient and well organized with adequate provisions,for railroad and tri.~ck access arxd necessary storage; Finding: No industrial development is proposed as an element of this PUD. Conclusion: The proposed z~lodifzcations complies I ~ b8.044(H). The PUD preserves natr,cral features s~rch as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; Finding: Na significant natural features are found on the subject site. Conclusion: Criterion does not apply. I7.68.040{1). The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; Finding: The subject site and surrounding area is recognized as residential in the Comprehensive Plan and is zoned for residential development. The proposed zxzadified plan is similar in design to developments in the area, thus wi11 be compatible to existing and proposed projects in the area. Conclusion: The proposed modifications complies I7.b$.0~40(J). Tlae PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. Finding: The proposed z~lodifzcation will reduce the number of lots from. 9l to 6l, thus reducing the expected impact an public infrastructure. Open space areas will be maintained by the homeowners association rather than the City. Finding: The applicant states on page S of the Project Description that the development will be fully constructed with all necessary utilities and facilities. Conclusion: The proposed zxzodifications cazxzplies 17.68.050 Preliminary development plan. A preliminary development plan shall contain a written statenzerzt and maps and other information on the area surrounding the proposed developrraent to show the relationship of the planned unit development to adjacent uses, both existing and proposed. The plan shall include the following: Page 5 of 10 A. A map to scale showing street systems, lot or partition lures arrd other allocations of land for• managerarent ar r.rse; Finding: The modification application contains a site plan or tentative plot plan {sheet 1 of 3} illustrating the layout of streets, lots, open space areas and the RV parking/storage area. A more detailed drawing will be submitted for review by the Public Works Department far the final develapznent review. Conclusion: The proposed modification coznplics with Section 17.58.OS0{A). I3. Measurements of areas proposed to be conveyed, dedicated or reserved for public streets, parks, parlrlvays, parking, pedestrian ways, playgrounds, school sites, public buildings and similar prcblic and semipublic uses; Finding: Applicant's exhibit, sheet 1 of 3 indicates those la~lds proposed for dedication or reservation far public use. A detailed suzvey znap is required prior to final plat appz-oval and the applicant will provide the detailed neap. Conclusion: The proposed znodificatian complies with Section l~'.58.OS0{B). C. A plot plan to scale_for each building site and cornraron open space area, showing the approximate location of buildings, structures, landscaping and other improvements and indicating the open spaces arotcnd buildings and structures; Finding: Drawings subzxzitted with this application include the modified site, utility and landscape plan and RV parking/storage area. The RV garage units are illustrated on the submitted drawings. Conclusion: The proposed modifications comply with Section 1'1.58.OS0(C}. D. Elevation anal perspective drawings of proposed strtctures; Finding: Prior to final development review, final plat review and issuance of building pezxxzits perspective drawings of the RV garage units will be required. Conclusion: The proposed modifications comply with Section 17.58.050{D}. E. A development schedule indicating: 1. The approximate start date of construction, Z. The stages in which the project will be built and the approximate start date of each stage, 3. Tlae anticipated rate of development, 4. The appr•oxirnate completion dates for each stage, S. The area, location and degree of development of common open space that will be provided at each stage; Finding: The applicant is working to mitigate the identified contazzzinants fouzad on the subject site and as a result, the original completion date has been advanced to 2008. The Page 5 of 10 applicant established this target date in applicant submittal, Project Description page 10 of 21. Conclusion: The proposed modifications comply with Section 17.G8.050(E). F. Agreements, provisions or covenants tivhich govern the use, maintenance and continued protection of the planned unit development and arxy of its cornrrzon open space areas; Finding: The major modifzcation application supersedes the 2005 submission., File No. 05011. An updated copy of the CC8cRs will be submitted prior to final plat review. Conclusion: The proposed modifications cozxzply with Section 17.68.050(F}. G. The following plans and diagrams either separately or contained on the figzzres contained in sxcbsections A throicgh D of this section: I. An off-street parking and loadir2g plan, ~. A circulation diagram indicating proposed movement of vehicles, goods and pedestrians within the planned unit development and to and f •om thoroughfares, Any special engineering features and traffic regulation devices needed to facilitate or• insure the safety of this circulation pattern shall be shown, 3. A landscaping and tree plan, 4. An economic feasibility report or market analysis, S. A solar orientation plan showing the general orientation of buildings and roof slopes to eacli other, to streets, and to the landscaping and tree plan; Finding: The proposed modification tentative plat plan illustrates astorage/camznon area in the northeast section of the site, which includes six (6) off-street parking stalls. Finding: The modification tentative plat plan shows all interior streets and their access paints. Sidewalks are included as well az~d landscape rows. Street trees are also illustrated on this plan. Finding: An economic feasibility or market analysis of the Central Point residential real estate market was submitted with the original proposal, Attachment F, pages 40-42 of staff report dated duly 5, 2005. Finding: The applicant states that the open spaces, RV parking area, and street trees will be installed per the City's planting and spacing requirements, applicant submittal page 11 of 21. Conclusion: The proposed modifications complies with Section 17.68.050 (G} H. Other pertinent infornration shall be included as the planning commission finds necessary to determine any appropriate and desirable requirements that may differ from those ordinarily applicable under this title. Finding: The n:zodifzed proposal eliminated the a11ey-loaded units; therefore, all proposed dwelling units are traditional detached single fazxzily. The applicant notes that the Page 7 of 10 storage/common area will provide convenience and a unique lifestyle opportunity for the residents. Conciusion: The proposed modifications comply with Section 17.G8.050(H). 17.68.080 Exceptions to zoning atzd subdivision titles. The planning commission may allow exceptions within a PUD,fof• dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street wiclths or off stt•eet parking and loading facilities differing from the specific standards for the zoning district in which the PUD is located. Exceptions shall be based upon the applicant's demonstration that the objectives of the zoning and subdivision titles of this code will be achieved. ~. YYlien the spacing between main buildings is less than the spacing wl~icli woz.zld be required between buildings developed under this chapter on separate parcels outside a PUD, otl2er desigfz features shall provide IiglTt, ventilation and other characteristics egtcivalent to that obtained from the spacing standards. Finding: The modification application proposes a reduction in the front and side yard setbacks. The requested setbacks are sizxzilar to the Transit Oriented District Low Mix Residential style of development. In the following table, the standard development requirezxzents for the R-1-G zone district are shown relative to the TOD, prior approved standards and proposed requirements submitted for the znodifzcation to White Hawk. Standard Standard TOD LMR 2005 Tentative White Hawk R-1-6 Requirements Approved Modification Re uirements White Ha~-vk Min. lot area- 5,000 sq ft 3,000-5,000 sq 3,480 to 11,300 sq G000-8280 sq ft lnterlor _ _ ft ft Mize. lot area- 7,000 sq ft 3,000-5,000 sq 4,588 to 8,280 G980-7784 sq ft corner ft scare ft Min. lot width- 50 ft 50 ft 40 ft GO ft interior Min. lot width- GO ft 50 ft 41 ft GO ft coz~zler Min. lot de th N/A 50 ft 87 feet 90-100 ft Min. front yard 20 ft 10115 ft 15 ft-house, 20 to 15 ft-house, 20 setback garage to arage Mize. side yard 5 ft~` 5 ft 5 ft regardless of 5 ft regardless setback- height of height interior Min. side yard 10 ft*~ 5110 ft 9 ft, no garage 9 ft, no garage setback-street access access Min. rear yard 15 ft 15 ft 15 ft interior lot, 15 ft setback Alley-load garage No alley-load is 3 feet garage Maximum 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft 35 ft height Page S of 10 Finding: The modified proposal eliminated the alley-loaded units, therefore rear loading garage setbacks are not needed. Conclusion: The proposed modification complies with Section 17.68.080(A}. B. Buildings, off-street parking and loading facilities, open space, landscaping and screening shall conform to the specific standards o_f the zoning district within fifty feet of the boundary lines of the development. Finding: The applicant states that the development will conform to the residential zoning district. The modified plan provides six stall parking in the RV area that can serve as guest parking in addition to the off-street parking available at each individual unit. Conclusion: The proposed modifications coznpiy with Section 17.68.080(B}. G The plannijrg commission naay approve building heights greatef° than those autliof°ized by the zoning district. The applicant shall demor2st~•ate that: 1. The subject building(s) will not be ~vithin one hundred feet of abutting residential property; 2. The increase in height will reduce the prices of dwelling units offered for sale or rent,- and 3. That additional natural open space will be presef•ved or additional common recreational af•eas will be provided. Finding: The proposed maximum height of each dwelling unit is 35 feet as permitted in the R-1-G zoning district. No exception to height standards is requested with this application. Co~~clusian: The proposed modifications comply with Section 17.G8.080(C}. D. The building coverage for afty PUD shall not exceed that which is permitted for other construction in the zone. Finding: The exception to the yard setback requirements is proposed with this application and structural coverage will be ~45%. Maximum lot coverage in the R-1-G coning district is 50°/a. Co~iclusion: The proposed modifications comply with Section 17.68.080(D}. E. When a PUD design would require exceptions to the regulations of the subdivision title, the plantzing commission may grant those conditions as part of the PUD. Tentative approval of the preliminary development plan of a PUD shall also constitute tentative appraiJal of a tentative plan under Chapter ~6. ~0 if the materials are presented in the manner pf-escribed by sttibdivision title. Findia~g: No exceptions to the subdivision title are proposed with application. Conclusion: The proposed modification complies with Section 17.68.080(E}. Page 9 of 10 17.68.090 Accessory uses in a planned r~nit development. .In addition to the accessory uses typical of the primary ztses aacthorized, accessory t.cses approved as a part of a planned unit development may include the following uses: A. Golf course; 13. Private park, lake or waterway; C. Recreation area; D. Recreation building, clubhouse or social hall, E. Other accessory structures, which the planning commission-finds, ar•e designed to serve primarily the residents of the PUD and are compatible with the design of the planned unit development. Finding. The RV parking/storage con-zznon area is considered an accessory use to the residential development as defined in Section 17.68.090(E). Accessory uses can be approved as a part of the tentative plan review when the Planning Con~znission finds the use and structures in a PUD are designed to serve primarily the residents, and the uses are compatible with the desig~~ of the development. Finding: The applicant states that the storage/common area will be for the exclusive use of the residents of the PUD, applicant submittal Project Description page 15 of 21. Conclusion: The proposed modification complies with Section 17.68.090(E). 16.10.080 Tentative plan approval. Approval of the tentative plan shall not constitute final acceptance of the f nal plat of the proposed subdivision or partition for recording; however, approval of the tentative plan shall be binding upon city for the purpose of the approval of the final plat if the final plat is in substantial compliance with the tentative plan and any conditions of approval thereof: Finding: The modified tentative plan submitted, applicant's submittal sheet 1 of 3, supersedes the plan submitted as part of the PUD review File No. 05011. The applicant will submit a final plat for review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or lot sales. Finding: As a condition oftentative plan approval, the final plat must be substantially the same as the tentative plan. Conclusion: The proposed modification complies. Page ~0 of 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF A MAJOR MODIFICATIONS APPLICATION TO WHITE HAWK ESTATES A RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN Applicant: Duncan Development; Agent: Matt Scheidegger, CESNW, Inc (37S 2W 02, Tax Lets 2700 and 2701) File No. 07119 WHEREAS, the applzcant subzxzitted an application for Major Modifications for the redesign of a residential planned development known a Vlrhite Hawk Estates {File Na. 05011) within tl~e R-1-6 Residential Single-Family zoning district. The property consists of approximately 20.14 gross acreage and is identified an the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 2W 02, Tax Lots 2700 and 2'701, located at 718 Beebe Road, in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on July 3, 2007, the Central Point Planning Comrriission conducted a duly-noticed public hearing on the application, at which time it reviewed the City staff reports az~.d heard testiznony and comments an the application; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission's consideration of the application is based on the standards and criteria applicable to Major Modifications in accordance with Section 17.09.300, Planned Unit Develapznent Section 3.7.68, the R-1-6 Residential Single-Family zoning district Section 17.20 and Application Review Process Section 17.05 of the Central Point Municipal code; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicant's request, it is t11e Planning Comm'ission's determination that the application does comply with the applicable standards, criteria and subject to compliance with conditions as set Earth in the Planning Department Staff Report (Exhibit "A"} dated July 3, 2007; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of Central Point Planning Commission, by this Resolution No. does hereby approve the application based on the findzz~gs and conclusions of approval as set forth on Exhibit "A", the Staff Report dated July 3, 2007, which includes attachments, is attached hereto by reference and incorporated herein. Planning Camzrrission P.esolution No. {070307) PASSED by tl-~e Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 3rd day of July, 2007. Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: City Representative Approved by me this 3rd day of July, 2007. Planning Commissioz~t Chair Planning Commission Resolution No. (070307)