Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - April 4, 2000PLANNING DEPARTMEN'T' MEMC7RANDUM HEARING DATE: April ~, 2444 T4: Central Point Planning Commission FRUM: Ren Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Variance to fence height requirements at 2662 Saint .lames Way (A tax let number has not yet been assigned by the County Assessor}. Applicant/ 4wx~er: Robert and Ruth Hadley 2662 Saint dames Way Central Point, Oregon 975(}2 Area tl Same Summary: The applicants Robert and Ruth Hadley wish to construct a six foot high fence in the side yard setback in order to gain a more useful back yard and privacy. Autht~rity: CPMC 1.24.454 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to render a decision on any application for a fence variance. Notice of the Public Meeting was given in accordance with CPMC 1,24.464. Applicable Law: CPMC 17.20.410 et seq. - R-1, Residential Single-Family District CPMC 15.24.050 et seq. -Fence Height on Corzzer Lots CPMC 15.24.084 et seq. -Fence Variances Discussion• At the March 7`~' meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed a request by Mr. and Mrs. Kadley to vary froze the 42 inch maximum height requirement for a portion of a proposed fence to be located in a street side yard setback, The Hadleys' would Tike to construct a six foot high fence along the property line adjacent Naples Drive. The request was continued by the Planning Commission so that the applicant could meet with city staff to measure and verify the actual distances between the property lines and the existing house. The Building Official and Public Works Director have visited the site and have provided measurements and recommendations for consideration by the Commission. Tlae actual measurements are shovrn on the Revised Site Plan { Attachment A }and include the sight vision distances supported by Public Works. The findings listed in the March 7`'' staff report (Attachment B} must be made to approve the variance and the Public Works Department is recommending that a 15 foot clear vision area be maintained if a variance is approved. Dodd t'ariance Ret~uest, 482 Freeman Road PYYD Staff Re~aor•t March 31, 20t?f} Page 3 Sanitary Sewer. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system (SS System} design, construction, and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon C7EQ, 199(3 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Greek Valley Sanitary Authority (t3GVSA}, and the Gity PWQ Standards, where applicable. The construction plans and the as-built drawings steal[ identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 8. RooflArea Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, andlor crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. V ~~8 E t podd ITariance Request, 4$21~`reerxatr CZoact 1'Y1~1~ S'taJj'Repor•t Adarch 31, 2t?t?tT f~age 2 Sighf-Vision Triangle: Maintain the minimum ~~-foot vision sight-vision triangle, or a modified triangle based on future road improvements, as approved by the Public Works Director, 2. Ri'ghf of Way and Easement Dedications: Regarding the road right-of-way adjoining the proposed Development: the Developer shall be required to dedicate additional land for street and City utility purposes a minimum of4g feet from the right-af way centerline of Freeman Road. Currently the right-of-way width on the "western ha1P' of Freeman Road along the subject property's frontage is 3Q feet. This would require dedication of an additional 1 g feet for City street and utility improvement purposes. After completion of build-out master planninglconstruction, any dedicated property that was not necessary, would be "vacated" and returned to the adjoining parcel of the proposed Development. The Developer shall also dedicate a separate 1i~-foot minimum width public utilities easement {P.U.E.}for utility installation outside the W. Pine Street right-of-way along the property's exterior frontage with Freeman Road. A zoning variance fora 10-foot set-back for structures from the Freeman Road right-of-way would need to be granted with the condition that vehicle parking perpendicular to the existing garage would not be allowed. This would be placed as a restriction on the property deed. Freeman Road and Cedar Streetlmprovements The Developer shall be required to design and construct the necessary sidewaEk/driveway approach improvements to Freeman Road and Cedar Street along the property's frontage with these two streets. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and shall be coordinated and approved by JC Roads and the City PWD. In ligh# of the existing development neighboring the subject property, it is recommended that the required sidewalkldriveway approach improvements be deferred until a later date, as determined by the City {i.e when redevelopment of Freeman Road occurs}. If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the CItylCounty for the developmentlimprovement ofthe noted improvements along the development's frontages with Freerrran Road and Cedar Street, as required and approved by the JG Roads and City PWD. ~. Site Drains eq IStorm Drain Pfan: Tl~e Deveioper shall design and implement a site drainagelstorm drain plan that corrects and enhances existing site drainage for the entire property noted on the site plan. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The storm drainage infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained. City Wafer Service: The number and sizes of the water meters and service laterals to the two buildings will be jointly determined by the Developer, and the City PWD and Building Departments. Each building will require a separate service lateral and meter, in accordance with City ordinances. The costs for the installation of any additional service laterals andlor new or up-sized water meters will be at the expense of the Developer, with work to be per#ormed by the City PWD. 6. Water System Gross Connecfion Confrol: Developer shall comply with bregon Health Division {C}HD} and City requiremen#s for cross canner#ion control. if a pressurized irrigation system, domestic water wells exist on the property, or other devices or operations are on the property that require a backflow prevention device to be installed, then the Developer will be required to install the required backflow prevention assemblies directly behind the City's water meter. ., . ~ d `7 A~tc~elarrrerat ~' ~~tv off' ~~ntral ~'o~.nt N T E R MEMO ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ To: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director From: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Subject: Memorandum Regarding Public Works Department Recommendations for the Zoning Variance Requests for the Dodd Residence located at 482 Freeman Road. Date: March 31, 2000 It is the Public Works Department's recommendations that the Planning Commission deny the zoning variance requests for the subject property, unless the noted changes are made, the subsequent variances are granted, and the recommended conditions for approval are attached to the development: 1. Sight Vision Triangle Clearance: The proposed redevelopment of the subject site places the residence and a 1 car garage within the required 55-foot clear-vision sight triangle associated with the northwest corner of the intersection of Cedar Street and Freeman Road. The residence building and garage could be moved 2 feet to the south, and be connected to the axis#ing shop by moving them 11 feet to the north, to locate these new strucfures outside the sight vision triangle. 2. Seconds Arterial Setback Re uirement Additional Ri ht-of»Wa !Easement Dedication Requirements, and Setback Variance: Freeman Road is considered to be a secondary arterial. As detailed in CPMC 17.80.090.A.1. the setback for any structure shall be "8ixty feet distant for the centerline of any secondary arterial or highway". The proposed garage structure is setback only 5£} feet from the centerline of Freeman Road. The existing garage and the proposed Barge do not meet the required setback. This required setback was initiated so that if redevelopment of a secondary arterial road does occur, that the buildings are placed at the proper setback to facilitate implementation of the required road improvements a# a later date. The City is planning on constructing urban improvements to Freeman Road to accommodate a three-lane road section, in the next ~ years. This will require additional right-of-way acquisition to facilitate the construction of the required improvements. This will require the acquisition of a minimum of 10 feet cif feasible, 4-feet as a bare minimum} of additional right-of-way. In the case of the subject property, if a 10-foot right-of-way dedication was required, there would only be a 1(3-foot setback to the existing garage. This would prevent any parking in front of the garage, as the doors for the garage front to Freeman Road. There would also be no parking along Freeman Road, unless additional right-of-way dedication of 7 feet {in addition to the 1D- feet of additions[ right-way dedication discussed above} was obtained, to provide for a parking lane in the road section. if the Planning Commission deems that the zoning variance should be granted to the subject property, then the Public Works Department is recommending that the variance be granted subject to the following conditions and requirements: ~ - {~~~ ATTACHMENT D RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT CC~NDITIC7-NS 4F APPR(3VAL 1. The approval ofthe Variance shall expire in one year on April 4, 201 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City, The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed. and approved at the public hearing within 6Q clays of Planning Commission approval. ~. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 3. Any new construction that attaches to the existing shop building must be designed in accordance with building code requirements including, but not limited to, adequate garage wall type separation and with openings from a kitchen or laundry room. iICPPI~}PDCtiPlanning104oo2. WPD 4 Y ~ V <, 3. The variance will ut~.l~.ze property within the intent and purpose of the zone district; The intent and purpose of the zone district, R-1 RESIDENTIAL SINGLE-FAMILY, is to stabilize and protect urban low-density residential characteristics and to promote and encourage suitable environments for family life. A new, larger, single-family home will be constructed on this lot. The present dwelling is unsuitable and arguably unsafe for family life. The placement of the home will be substantially the same as its present location, The proposed residence conforms to the present character of the area and zone district. A new home. at this location will be better suited to family life and the neighborhood than the existing residence. A replacement single--family dwelling will preserve and be consistent with the present character of the neighborhood. 4. Circumstances affect the groperty that genera~.~.y do not apply to other property in the same zoning district; There is a pre-existing 26' x 36' garage located 50 feet from the centerline of Freeman Road and 5 feet from the Northerly property line. ©nly 58 feet between this structure and Cedar Street to the South remain for location of a home. A sewer--line easement crosses the Northwest corner of the lot which forces the placement of a residence in the South half of this lot. The 24 foot setback an Cedar Street leaves very limited alternative placement of a residence other than what is proposed. 5. The conditioxzs for which the variance is requested were not self imposed through the applicant's own actions, nor the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. In 1985 this property gained approval and had a garage constructed 5tJ feet from the center-.line of Freeman Road. This garage was part of the owner- applicant's plan to later construct a dwelling the same distance from Freeman Road. At that time the zoning and special setback requirements permitted these locations of buildings. Owners--applicants relied on the 1985 ordinances when they undertook their building plan. ©wner-applicants expended considerable sums to develop their plans. The setback ordinances subsequently changed. This frustrates the owner-applicant`s original plans. The adoption of setback requirements was by the City of Central Point's and not self-imposed. PAGE 2 -- V'ARSANCE APPLICATIC?N FINDINGS DC}DD, Z~ARRY & GEORGIANA .~ . ~ ~ d y a c 1 ./ VARIANCE APPLICATION FINT)INGS This is a request far a variance to build a residential structure 1.0 feet within the 20 foot side setback requirement and a garage 1.0 feet within the 60 foot front setback of Code 17,6t7.~9~. The proposed garage and residence will align itself with. a pre-existing shop which is the same distance Pram the center-line of an arterial. street, ie., 1D feet within the 60 foot front setback, T.. The variance wi1.1. provide added advantages tc~ the neighborhood or city, such as beautification ar safety; The present dwelling is raid, unsightly and dilapidated. Electrical wiring should be replaced for fire safety reasons. There is no foundation to the present structure. It has rat and termite damage. The roof sags far this reason. Windows are. permanently jammed or painted shut. The location for this house is on a street corner, plainly visible from the East and South. Building a new, home will improve the neighborhood's aesthetic appearance, as well as reduce potential fire hazard. As the house's property value increases, tax assessment and revenue to the city will increase correspondingly. A new structure will enhance the quality and appearance of this neighborhood and community. There will. be increased fire safety to the neighborhood with a replacement dwelling. ~~ ~.~ ~ ~' *. ~. ~~~~ ~ ~,; .. 2. .~"he variance wi~.l a~at have an.y signiP~.ca~a.t adverse impacts upoxt the neigbborhoodt . The present dwelling has. been there for about 5~ years. The neighborhood, from that time, has continually been comprised of single family residences. A garage located on these premises was constructed Sa feet from the center-line in 1985, Placing a dwelling 50 feet Pram the center-Line will situate it at the same distance as a pre-existing structure. Situating a new dwelling 1(~ feet inside the 20 foot setback from Cedar Street does not appreciably impact foot or motor traffic, nor visibility, as the garage which. is closer to the intersection wall be further from the setback {24 feet}. The residential nature of the neighborhood will not be changed by this request, PAGE 1 - VARIANCE APPLICATION FINDINGS DODD, LARRY & GEORGIANA ti, ~ d described above wit! need to be related directly to the proposal and should be stated'clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant arc available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, Uregon. Copies of the sank are available at 15 cents per page. 5. Fear additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at {541} 664- 3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY (7F PR4C1/DURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the applications, Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Variance and Site Plan. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. 4- .pl ___ `~~' ~ ~r-"-~---vat ~~.~~_-~ i- `F ~ I ~~ ~ ~~_~~ ~~ ~. sus .~~ _ _ ~~ _ _ ~~~!.'~ 1 ~.. _ I ~_ _ ~i ~~ f ~ z 3 ~ E .~.. 7.. ~.~ ,._~ ``i I i tt F-- ~ ~ F- F 155 South Second Street i Central Point, ©12 97502 ! {541 664-3321 !- Fax: {541 } 664-6384 ~ ~~~ 4 ~ ~ - € ~ j - p. ° 'Q 1 Y PRAIRI~rk~D ~ ~ ., CJ ~~~~ ~~" ~e~~~c~l` .Z'oin~ .~.~~i..~vtv.~.ty~ .~EP.A.,RT'11~.L1V~` lien Gexsclalex Community PIannex Matt Samitoxe Planning Technician ~Tot~ce of Meeting Date of Notice: ~~arch 15, 2Q00 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE C}F MEETING April 4, 2000 7:00 p.m. {Approximate) Central Paint City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, t~regon Toxn Humphxey, AICP Planning Dixector City 4 f `C' e~'tGrr~~i ~{)i~kt ~x~~lf.~ i f f~r. ft Planning Dep;~erz't Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Plant3.ing Comrr~ission will review an application for a Variance that would allow the construction of a new residence at 482 Freeman Road. The applicant has requested to vary from the minimum front and side yard setback requirements for the district. The parcel is located in a R-1-6, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W11BA, Tax Lot 1540. CRITERIA Ft3R DEC1SItaN The requirements for Variances and Site Plan Review are set forth in Chapter 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance with the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS l . Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 2000. 2. Written comments may be seat in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, 4R 97502. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimon~o~ written comments about the decisions v 155 ~rn~th ,~',e~~nnc'1 street ~ C'.~ntral Pnint. t~R 475t}2 • (5411 fi{y4-331 ~ Fax' (5411 ~ih4-6384 i ,, LETTER C1F PROJECT DESCRTPTSON This project is to build a residential structure 1C} feet within the ~~ facet side setback requirement and a garage 1C} feet within the 6th foot front setback an the canner of Cedar Street and Freeman Raced, in Central Point, Jackson County, C3regan. The prapased garage and residence will align itself with a pre-existing shop which was constructed 5Cl feet from the center-line of Freeman Road in 1985. At that time the zoning and special setback requirements permitted these locations of buildings and this garage was part of the owner-applicant`s plan to later construct a dwelling the same distance from Freeman Rand. The setback ordinances subsequently changed, frustrating the owner-applicant's original plans. The present dwelling is old, unsightly and dilapidated. Electrical wiring should be replaced far fire safety reasons. There is no foundation to the present structure. It has rat and termite damage. The roof sags for this reason. windows are permanently jammed or painted shut. The location for this house is an a street corner, plainly visible from the East and South, and has been. there for about 5tJ years . The neighborhood, from that time, has continually been comprised of single family residences. A new, larger, single-family home will be constructed on this lat. The placement of the home will be substantially the same as its present location. The prapased residence canfarms to the present character of the area and zoning district and is modest in its size. The pre-existing ~&' x 3&' garage .located 50 feet from the center-line of Freeman Raced and 5 feet from the Northerly property line leaves only 58 feet between this structure and Cedar Street to the South to locate of a home, A sewer line easement crosses the Northwest corner of the lot which forces the placement of a residence in the South half of this lot. The 24 foot setback an Cedar Street leaves very limited alternative placement of a residence other than what is proposed. Res ectf submitted, 1 John ~, Curtis ~ - ~~~ ~f+al~` [•~` tatiG ~?. o8.'Z~tC~ S I I i .2° `S#~acK t 1 f ~i ~ ,,~ E ~rn ! F p ~~ ~ f~ - :`~ ' ~~ t 1 ~/7t77!!+ ~lY/11rfi ~7~~ ~ ~ b A Ilse. ~X~.4'f'ti»,~ ,~ ~ i t G 4 g.3Si +xS aM acUtsSvl.~ 5'ft~+c'~ofE. '~~,,,,~ ~.~.c,G++x.S GcsnS<,~GtAr'~'t+y v~sd2C1`~ GPfnc, t"7,bO.o3o, Exa7rAt6 sao0J6/{p~{4~ ..._.._. zt` '. j°~ aft„ . 9Q~ Q, ~_: - .. ~.;.: ~. ;~ :... ' RtT7` PLAN f`=~f7~ -.~ •. -- yfz fLt~7dkTJ ~ ~ ;. . $~'ta.~darp ,f~r"~Gtt+k~..~~tGas.~S-~~L~ Ct`NfQAt,r"3~rAtT dtL X7561.. ~72~ oo Q ~' 'bt7 <-C'~` M~E~.,.Lut'-t.P ~to~n ~ ~ 11 ~ /S ~ i =. ,`*• t ~ ~7 j a. tJ ~(t~ s" s " s err X07 PtBN yP2 ftx~,~tknt +21i C~7Vttirsi ~r~t l' 61L A7$"D2 "- t~'ttp 4f ~tf~?tI ~Q~At ~.~~~~~~`~ t~A ~~ ~'lanning D~rartm~ut .~ (~ ~ $ . " s. Exhibits: A. Site Plan l3. Notice of Public Hearing C. Applicant's Findings and Letter of Project Description D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions E. Public Worl£s Staff P.eport ~iCPPI~PI~C1Planr~i ng~ooo02. W PI? 4 3. The Variance will utilize property within tl~e intc~~t and the purpose of tl~c zoning district: ^ dingle family residences are a permitted use in tlxe R-~ -6 coning district. Dwellings are typically required to meet zoning setbacks. 4. Circumstances affect the property that generally do not apply to property in the same zoning district; and ~ The 0.2Ci acre parcel is located adjacent Freeman Road which is classified as a secondary arterial and far which a special setback exists, The sewer easement is private and of an undisclosed width, The applicants appear to be able to ca~istruct a new residence within the setback envelope. A 10 faat easement towards the northwest property boundary limits the rear yard setback since structures can't be built an them. S. The conditions for which the Variance is requested were not self imposed through the applicant's own actions, not the actions of the applicant's agents, employees or family members. ^ The applicants have submitted their awn findings of fact far consideration by the Commission (Exhibit «C"}. There are alternatives to the proposal that has been submitted. An alternative to the applicant's site plan proposal is to attach the new home to the existing shop building in order to save ICl feet and fit the new home within the setback envelope ~ shown on attachment A). The existing structure could remain until such time that the city widens the road. Recommendation: staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Approve the Variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Teeny the proposed Variance application; or 3. Continue the review and public hearing for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. tICPPTJPDC1Planningt(}OOt12.VVPC} V ~ t1 The code defines tl~e Cedar Street frontage as the front lot line that leas a mi~~in~un120 foot setback. Freeman Road, a seconda~~y arterial, has a special setback of t~0 feet as measured from the centerline. Sia~ce the corner lot is located on Fr-ecman Road, the public works standards "the ,green book" requires a Sd foot vision clearance area where a maximum 42 inch height restriction is enforced. Mr. Jahn Curtis, working on behalf of tl~e Dodd's is requesting that tl~e Pla~aning Commission vary from the minimum setback requirements and a modification to the vision standards so that the new structure can be constructed and aligned with an existing shop and garage. if approved, the front yard setback (on Cedar Street }would be reduced to ten feet and the special setback along Freeman Road } would be reduced to 50 feet as measured from centerline. The Public Works Department will probably only need an additional 10 feet ~ a total of S~ feet from centerline}. However, once Freeman Road is widened, the right of way will be within 10 feet of the garage and any cars parked in the driveway will extend over a new sidewalk. As the Commission is aware, Freeman Road has recently been widened near the Mountain View Plaza and at the opposite end near Hopkins Road, The Public Works Department has been working with property owners in those areas to obtain additional right of way for the improvements. Additional widening is planned in the near future and it is likely that buildings that do not meet the setbacks will have to be moved. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law CPMC 1'7.80.010 stipulates that the Planning Commission may grant a variance if findings are made that the following considerations will either result from the granting of the variance ,~r do not apply to the requested application: 1. The Variance will provide added advantages to the neighborhood or the City such as beautification or safety; ^ Anew residence would meet current regulations of the Uniform Building Code and likely increase the property value since the existing borne will be replaced. However it is city staff s belief that reducing sight vision at this corner is a disadvantage from a safety standpoint. 2. The Variance will not have any significant adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; ^ The residential character of the neighborhood would not change as result of the proposed new construction. However a precedent may be set by allowing new construction in a special setback from which the building will eventually have to be moved. V t7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPCJ-RT 1~11AR1NG DATI~. APR1Z 4, 2000 TQ: FRCIM: SUBJECT: Applicant/ (lwner• Agent: Central Point Planning Commission Tom Humphrey A1CP, Planning Director Public bearing - to consider a request to vary from the .front and side setback requirements along Cedar Street and Freeman Road .~~' ` Larry and Georgianna Dodd 482 Freeman Road Central Point, QR 9'7502 `~ F ~,, ~ :~ ~ ~~ ~~ Sohn D. Curtis 55 North Third Street Central Point, ~?R 9'7502 Summary: The applicants, Zarry and Georgianna Dodd have applied for a variance from the front and side yard setback requirements at 482 Freeman Road so that the existing home can be demolished and replaced. The subject parcel is coned R-1-6, Residential Single-Family. Authori : CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Variance. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. A livable Law: CPMC 17.28.010 et seq. - R-l, Residential Multiple-Family I~istrzct CPMC 17.8{}.010 et seq... Variances Discussion• Mr. and Mrs. Dodd, the residents at 482 Freeman Road would like to demolish a small home and replace it with a 1,'702 single family residence and one car garage. The 8,910 square foot parcel is located at the northwest corner of Cedar Street and Freeman Road in the R-1-6, Residential Single Family zoning district. Unfortunately for the Dodds' parcels along Freeman Road and other secondazy arterial roadways are subject to the strictest special setback and sight vision area requirements in the city. The. agent for the applicant has stated that there is also a sewer easement across the northwest corner of the property which further necessitates the variance. BCVSA cannot confirm the width ofthe sewer easement but acknowledges that a private service line easement exists to serve a neighboring property. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. Independent L3aptist C'/nurolr, t~Test Pirse Street PWC? Staff Report ~1arClr 31, 2CI~t? Page S 12, Sanitary Sewer All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system ~~S Sys#em} design, construction and tes#ing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the t.~regon I~EQ, 1990 APWA Standards, C7regon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sani#ary Authority (BCVSA}, and the City l'W© S#andards, where applicable. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall idea#ify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 13. RaoflArea C?rarns: Al[ s#ructures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building, Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 14. Grading Plans: grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade con#our lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade con#our lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. The grading plan shall also indicate the in#erpreted boundaries of the floodway and #loodplain of the base flood, as determined by the FEMA FIRM s#udy of Griffin Creek. ,.. Independent Baptist church, t~'est Pine Street PY~L7 Staff .Report Mttrcfa 31, 20t?t1 Page 4 As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations {as appropriate} of actual instal#ed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral; modifications to s#reet section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other below grade utility lines; etc. Provide a "red-line" hard copy {on Mylar~}, or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutaCAD~ compatib#e drawing elec#ronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior #o acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the Ci#y Administrator or his designee. 4. Fleyafions: All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shal# be tied #nto an established City approved benchmark and be so Hated on the plans. 5. Fil/ Placement: All fii# placed in the deve#apment shall be engineered fil# that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for the upper ~.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does Hat underlie bui#ding, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. 6. RoadlDriyewa IParkin Areas: The Developer shall eva#uate the strength of the native sails and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected loads {including fire equipment} to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. The Developer will need to provide the necessary section designs far PWD and Fire District 3 review. The driveways, access roads, and truck parking and turning areas on the proposed development must be designed and positioned in a manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO Single Unit Truck, without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic. '7. Uti/ify Plans: The utility plans shall be drawn to wale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances {transformers, valves, etc.}. 8. Brea Lighting Plan: Need to provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for panting and public access areas, including the driveway entrance from W. Pine Street. 9. Fire Hydrants: provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. Fire Hydrants need to be connected to 8-inch-diameter and larger #ines. If applicable, steamer ports at hydrants loco#ed near the building shall face the buildings. Firs hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. 10. Water System: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and #ocation of all water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. 91. Water System Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with C?regon Health Division {OHD} and City requirements for cross connection control. If a pressurized irrigation system andlor domestic water wells exis# on the property, the Developer will be required to install the required backflaw prevention assemblies directly behind the City's water meters. .~ - ~ ~ fr Independent Baptist C'hurclr, b~'est f'irre Street PY~D Staff Report Alarch 37, 2t1t?t1 Page 3 associated with these facilities. Catch basins, curb inlets, and area drains shall be designed far sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention, 6. Fire Protection and Domestic Water Service: The Developer shall check with Fire District Na. 3, to determine if ire protection requirements have been met for the site. Fire Hydrants may need to be installed along the subject property's frontage with W. Pine Street or potentially an the property to provide the require fre suppression requirements for the site, in accordance with Fire District Na. 3 and City standards, and as approved by Fire District ldo. 3. The number and sizes of the water meters and service laterals to the two buildings will be jointly determined by the Developer, and the City PWD and Building Departments. 1~ach building wilt require a separate service lateral and meter, in accordance with City ordinances. The costs for the installation of any additional service laterals and/ar new or up-sized water meters will be at the expense of the Deveioper, with wank to be performed by the City PWD. 7. Driveways. Access Reads, and Parking Areas: The driveways, access rands, and parking and turning areas an the proposed development should be designed and positioned in a manner that accommodate the turning movements and access of an AASHTO single unit truck and the Fire District's requirements. All driveways, access roads, and parking areas should either have asphalt ar cement concrete surtace, or other approved "paved" surface. General Development Flans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD far review and approval, plans and specifications far all improvements proposed for construction ar modifications within the City ar public rights-af-way and easements or for connections to City infrastructure. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets {including sidewalks, curbs and gutters and landscape bufFers}; storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance systems; water distribution system {up to the service meter and including lire protection}; street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, ar~dlor upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD far approval prior fa installation. 2. ~provals: Fire District t~la. 3 {fire hydrant placement and emergency vehicle access}, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {BCVSA, for sanitary sewers}, and Jackson County Roads and Park ;~erviaes {W. Pine Btreet driveway connection} written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final aonstructian plan review and approval by City PWD. 3. As-Guilts: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer ar surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. if feasible, the Developer's engineer ar surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard cagy" form {produced an Mylar~} and in a "digital" format campatibfe with AutaCAD~', or other form as approved by the City PWD. ., ~ 3 ~ Independent L3aptist Chaerch, i~'est Pine Street PFYI7 Staff t2eport March 31, 20CTt~ Page 2 ~. W. Pine Streetlm rovements The Developer shall be required to design and construct the necessary improvements to W. Pine Street slang the property's frontage with W, Pine Street. The subject portion of W. Pine Street that adjoin the subject development is developed as a "rural" road that does not meet current City or County urban standards. These improvements include, but are not limited to, street widening, bike lane, curb, gutter, a 6-font wide sidewalk {preferably meandering sidewalks set back a minimum of 3-feet from the back of curb}, an irrigated landscape buffer {trees and grass}, street lights, storm drainage, and traffic control and delineation. All improvements shall be constructed in accordance with City standards and sha11 be coordinated and approved by JC Roads and the City PWD, In light of the exis#ing development neighboring the subject property, it is recommended that the required improvements to W. Pine Stree# be deferred until a later date, as determined by the City {i.e when redevelopment of W. Pine Street occurs}. If any ar all of the improvements are to be deferred to a Later date, then the Developer will be required to enter into a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the CitylCounty for the develapment/improvement ofthe noted improvements along the development's frontages with W. Pine Street, as required and approved by the JC Roads and City PWD. 5. Sife Drains elStarm Drain Plan; The developer shall design and implement a si#e drainagelstarm drain plan that corrects and enhances existing site drainage far the entire property noted on the site plan. Sheet flaw surface drainage Pram the property onto the public rights-af-way, ar ants neighboring properties is unacceptable. The storm drainage infrastructure will be privately operated and maintained. The storm drain systems {both an-site and within the City/County right-of-ways}, shall be designed to accommodate the storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development {either surface run-on ar culvert ar creekJditch conveyance}; any future development an adjacent properties; conveyed storm drainage or surface water flow, and any flows from areas deemed by the City that will need to connect-into the proposed development's ar City'slCaunty's rights-of-way SD System. During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system {SD System}, -which provides for storm water runoff Pram and run-on onto the prapased development {either surface run-on or culvert ar creeklditch conveyance}, the Developer shall demonstrate that the storm water flaws from the completion of the prapased development {and at any time prior to completion of development} da not exceed predevelapment flows; or that existing capacity, allowances, or provisions have been made {and approval of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has been obtained}, which accommodate any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to be used in.the engineering calculations. Developer's engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 1g year storm event. The SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging or must be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing private or public storm drainage facilities. Any private storm drain system exceeding 3~inches in diameter shall be designed to directly connect to the public storm drain system {at a manhole ar curb inlet only}, and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. The potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, non-hazardous, and law maintenance facility. If applicable, the storm water retention facilities shall be suitably landscaped; designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition; and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards "' Attarrlrnterrt I~ City of Central Point I N T E R __ _- MEMO O F F I C E T©: Tom Humphrey, Planning Director Fr©m; Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Subject: Memorandum Regarding Public Works Department Recommendations for the Independent Baptist Church located at 3201 West Pine Street Date; March 31, 2000 l# is our understanding that the City's planning department staff have determined the required setbacks and floodway designations that affect the subject property, and have sited the new location of the existing building to meet these requirements, Based on this assumption, the Public Works Department is recommending the folbwing conditions for approval of the proposed addition to the existing building: Special Requirements 1. Existing infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connec#ions to axis#ing infrastructure (i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,} will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have ei#her adequate capacities to accommodate the flows andlor demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development`s infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable} the regulatory agency, utility owner, and/or property owner involved. 2. Right of INaV and Easement L?edications: Regarding the road right-of-way adjoining the proposed Development: the Developer shall be required to dedicate additional land far street and City u#ility purposes a minimum of 44 feet from the right-of-way centerline of 1=. Pine Street. Currently the right-of-way width on the `'northern half' of W. Pine street along the subject property's frontage is 4g feet. This would require dedication of an additions[ 4 feet for City street and utility improvement purposes. After completion of build-out master planning/construction, any dedicated property that was not necessary, would be "vacated" and returned to the adjoining parcel of the proposed Development. The Developer shall also d~d'icate a separate 10-foot minimum width public utilities easement {P.U.E.}for utility installation outside the W. Pine Street right-of-way along the property's exterior frontage with W. Pine Street. 3. Clear Vision Areast7"riangles. All driveway approaches of the proposed Development connecting to w. Pine 5freet shaft maintain a minimum 5~-foot sight vision triangle as measured from the edge of the right-of-way to the center of the driveway. This requirement may be adjusted by the City PWD, depending on final orientation and lane layout of the adjoining roads, in accordance with AASNT{~ clear sight-vision requirements. ,.. ~~~ ~zccoMMl";1~11<~lcr~ P>~al~l~l>IV~ 1•~rP~~iTMI~.NT cvlvn~~r~oNS ~r ~.~7P~~~~v~.z, l . Tl}e approval of the Site Ilan shall expire in one year on November 2, 2040 finless an application for a bui€ding permit or an application for extension leas beef received by tl~e City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public heari~~g within 64 days of Planning Con~tt~ission approval. ~. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 3. The project must meet the off-street parl~ing requirements for churches, and the parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather use and approved by the Public Works F.?epartment. ~, The applicantlproperty owner shall submit final parking, landscaping, ligl~.ting and sign plans to the Planning, Public Works and Building L}epartments for approval prior to obtaining any building permits.. J v~~ ~ 1'111 3. lsstlrs ~vl~iclr r~~ay provide tl~c basis #i~r ati <~#~pral c}:~ €1ac: E~~~~€tcrs sl~~tl# ~zt r<uscci }~rit}r tc7 the cxpiratic~n o#~thc con~~~aeilt period ~u~tcd above. A~~y tcstittu7ny and G;~rittcrt cc~l~uile~tts abc~-it tl~e dccisicros described above will need try he rclatcci to the l~rol~c~sal <~nd sh~uild lie stated clearly to the: I'la~~~3i~Ig Cc~It~~~lissic}~~. ~. Copies o#~all cvide~ice relic;d tipotl lay tl~c applicant arc available for public rc:vic;w at City I-lall, 155 South Second Street, Cc:c~tral Pont€, (Jrcgon. Ccapics o#~tlic sank arc available at 15 cents per page. I`or additional inforcztation, the public naay contact the Planning Departn~e~~t at (541) 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY dF PROCrDURE At tl~e meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, tecl~t~ical staffreports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and bear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the variance. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. -- 155 South Second Street i Central Point, C7R 97542 i 541 664-3321 i Fax: 541 664-638 ,n n r-~ GIN TR,~ ~~ z z a ` .-. w ~ ~O ~~ ~~~ off' ~~Z t-~~~r ~'o~~~ ~ L",t_.!"'1;t V1 Y.{t Y~X .C~:t::t-.l'S~~tYt.t~.t Y ,tom ....w C'~t~ Of C~llti"Al< P'U~ti~ ~~~~~x~~ tt~ tr E}Iannixt~ Deparf~nen't I~atice of N~eeting Date Of Notice: C}c~o~cr 11, 1999 Meeting Date: Time: Puce: NATURE OF MEETING November 2, ~ 999 7:00 p.m. {Approximate) Central Paint City Hall I55 Soufih Second Street Central Paint, Oregon tt~tt [iutttFtltrc}~, ~iCt' t'iattitiztg [Jsrcctcsr CCcn Gcrscltlcr Cocttrttrinizy ['laitster Mazz Satttizc~rc 'tactr~irtg TecltrtiCi~tt1 Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Paint Planning Commission will review a site plan that would allow a buildzng addition to the Independent Baptist Church at 320 West Pine Street. The parcel is heated in a R-I-B, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372WIOAB, Tax Lat 5300, The Central Paint Planning Commission will review the site plan application to determine that all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. CRITERIA .FOR DECISION The requrrements for site plan review are set forth. in Chapter I7 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off-street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan. is also reviewed in accordance to the City`s Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting an the above-mentioned land use decision may subrr~it written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, November 2, 1999. 2. Written canarrients may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central ['aint City [-{all, 155 Sautl-t Second Street, Central faint, OfZ 97502. 155 South Second Street i Central faint, t~I2.97502 ! {541)_664-3321 • I*ax: {54l 1664-638 nn~ Cifiy o t Cezztr~tl Faint ~~~Z~~~ tt~ tt f'i anztin ~; D ~ sz-trxt ext ~ ~- - 1~4. . 5'k t b ~•TZ.,C}C~D ~, f w 3 t-E ~2~ ~ ~ v~~~fY ~. _ y' w u' _Z i 3 I riti ~:~ .. ^r', . .-/f i ~~ hC~E I fi i t W ~ ~~~~'' Exit. ~wE~,-....- I i ri~~t ~ ~F" ~6wf~. rr a `~,,o ~~ ~ . ~7 2~ 1~h~ - t-~,~~, ~~` ~. +' :tom,. Jet t L ( ~ll~ l: V ~~ ~ j r 1. .~'~""~ _'.+yr r.1 [teco~nu~endation Straf~f`rccon~tz~ends that tl~e Planning Cot~ttttissio~~ take o~~e of`tl~e following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the Site I'la-i subject to tl~c recon~~~le~ulecl cotltlitiol~s of approval; or 2. Deny tl~e proposed Site Plans or 3. Continue tl~e review ofthe Site Plan at tl~e discretion of tl~e Con~~x~ission. Attachments A. Site Plan B. Notice of P~zblic Hearing C. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval ~ ~~~ l3. l)csigr~, r~u~~rl~cr 4~rld lacatit~n c7f~ ir~ctrc:ss and et;ress fx~i~~ts sc~ <rti tc~ i~t~l~rtnTc and tc~ ~rvc~ici ir~terfercrtcc wi€h tl~e traffic flt»~~ o€~ fa~rblic stc~c~is; ^ The cl~urcl~ access is taken fro4~~ a drivc~r~ay ors West Pine Street. `i'l~e Public Works staff report may require additional improvements to tl~c drive~sr~ay if tl~c building -vere to be enlarged beyond the original footprir~#, C. Ta provide off=street parking and laadirig facilities and pedestrian and vel~iclc flaw facilities in such a manner as is carnpatible with tl~e use far wl~icl~ the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a n~arxner as to in-rprove and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ Tl~e project area is large enough to provide far the 17 required off-street parking spaces, D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they da not conflict with ar deter from traffic control signs car devices and that they are compatible with the design of their buildings or uses and will not interfere with or detract from the appearance or visibility of nearby signs; ^ There is no ne~v signage associated with this application. Any changes would require permits and staff approval. E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide far the reasonable safety aflife, limb and property, including, but not limited ta, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes sa that all buildings an the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements ofJackson County Fire District 3. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ With the exception of the flood way encroachment, the lauilding addition rrzeets all requirements of the Centro]. Point Municipal Code. G. Compliance with. such architecture and design standards as to provide aesthetic acceptability in relation to the neighborhood and the Central Point area and it's environs. ~ The architecture of the proposed structure is similar to Domes in the surrounding ncigh6orhood. Churches are permitted uses in residential zones. .~~ 1. ~~ ()[lc.• I~txicnti;li tart?l~lt:ilt llitli tii~ i~rt}t~t}scti aclclitit~I1 i:: €'~la[cti tt~ tlit?{.'i[1•`s Iltu~ti t~r~linati«;1~; I~t}rti<>ti'; t}1~ [iitr t?ti~[in`~ anti I~rttiit~scti 15L[iltiin~ <lrc It~c<l[ctl in al 1'•1:11,=t itf~[ititic~ti 11tuu1 ll~al~ ;llt~[is~ Cirifliti C'I"r:t'1:. 1 lit' nltlil[t'[11~11 t't)dt I~rt}17[l~[ts dtl't'~t11)[1it[i[ I[1 iht' 17C)t~ti 11RI1' its i't`tillt't: [17t' I~t1tt'it1~11 dillll~i~t' tt~ 11t'r4t1[l:+ :anti l~l't7]lt`rt~' t17<lt t~ottld 1}t' c~;t}ct•Eed 1['t1111 l~t}t}tl ll~~ltiri' velt~clt}- tt[ld dcbCts blt~eit<lgc. I~etitI"iClCd ti[1't'tinl t'lla[iilt;lti lialrc i)'1~[C<lilV 1}t:t`I7 IiIlt111'n tt} dll-t[~t t'1t`irtis 11'tt[t'i' t~Iltt~ sL[rrtltitidl[1f? 1}I'C}17CrtI45 t't'`illltlt7~? 111 adc11t1ollill 3[1dI3't',Ct Iltltld dai77ilgt'.. '1'c} fac:ilitate a sc}1Lltian to t17~:17ood lvay dile[nn7a, tEic C:on7[7lunity Baptist C'liurch could exercise ol7e c}1 two C7ptIC}Ils: a} ~ he c11LtrCh CC}Llld reCOnStI'Llct tl7e p{7riton C?1`t11e ~?LI(itliClt? ttlaf lvils rt'.171{}VC:d rCCt~11t1y 15 ;!C7t7~ as tl7e builditlg footprint was not increased itl sq€tare footage and only it~tlle ren7odcled area were constructed to current col7strLiction standards for good proofing. b) Tl7e church coLild add-on to the existing bLlilcling on_ ly if tl~e additio[1 could be located ouf of the flood way az7d engineered to provide no rise iI7 the flood way elevatiot7. lftl~e buildit7g were to be increased in size, tl7e City's Public Works L~epartn7et7t would reserve the rifl7.t to assign reasonable it73provemet7t regt,Iil"emet7ts to the facility's access onto West Pine Street. CPMC 17.64.010 requires that ehurclles al7d chapels provide" riot less than ooze s~aaee7~cr each~fcaur sccrt.r car eight sf7ucrre feet ~Izrs tone s7~aee ft7r- ever-y~fty sc7ucrr'e feet caf area alacrilable_for ~ortcrble seating, secotzclar~I crssetazbly car elassraoatz l~zrrlloscs". Based Llpon available seating { 1 1 pews }and classroom areas { 360 square feet }, the site would need to provide at least 17 spaces. The church does not curl-ently Dave marked parking stalls but does appear to have adequate room to n7eet the off- street requirement. No additional fill including gravel, can be applied to the parking area unless an engineer can demonstrate that the fill will not increase the flood elevation. Findings of Fact & Cvnclusinns of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from. Section 17.'72.040: ~. Landscaping and fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to t7ot substantially interfere with the landscaping sclLeme of the neigl7borl7ood, and in such a manner to use the sal"ne to screen such activities and sights as I77ight be 17eterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. T1~le Commission may require the ll~aintenance of existing plants or tl7e installation. of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ~ There is no additional landscaping associated ~vit11 this project. J v i~ v L ~ 1'~V I+Yf r~ttcrclirrierst C P1.,ANNINC; I),PA1~`1'M1?N`1' STAI<E= IZ1{',PE)It'1' l~Il~Al~.l1'~#Ci IAA l L",: l~oveC??~?er 2, I ~l~)q `1`CJ: Central l'oi~?t Plan~?ing Con~~~~issio~? EItOM: `I'om 1-lumpl?rey AICI', Plat?t?it?g I.7irector SUBJECT: Public I-learing-Site Ilan Review of37 2 W lOAB, Tax I.,ot 5300 -Building Addition at the Independent Baptist Churhl?. `1`l?e parcel is zoned R-I-B, Residential Single- Fac??ily. tJ`vncrl Independent Baptist Cl?urcl? Applicant: 320 West Pine Street Central Point, C}regon 97502 Agent: Fred Brown 10l East 'Valley View Read Ashland, t~regon 975241 Propertx Description/ 37 2W 10AB, Tax Lot 5300 - {1.54 acres Ztizzi~ R-I-8, Residential Single Family District Summary The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review that would allow the addition of 756 square feet to the building owned by the Independent Baptist Church. Applicable ~.avv CPMC 17.36.010 et seq. - R-1-8, Residential Single Family District CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. - C1ff Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion Mr. Fred Brown, a representative ofthe Independent Baptist Church has requested that the Planning Commission review a Site Plan that would allow the existing 793 square foot building at 320 West Pine Street to be expanded by 756 square feet. The proposed expansion is intended to replace a portion of tl?e original building ren?oved for safety reasons just recently. `T`his addition would be larger than the previously removed portion and would add three classrooms, restroon? facilities and a Coyer to the existing sanctuary facility. ,~ ,` ~ .._. ......_..,~......~,.x...~rarhxll,T~Y"!..,_ ~ .rs~~.M;iks~aiwr~r`-"--l~wu ,A r 1 `Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1999 ~` Page4 order to give the staff enough time to find a solution to the floodway problem, Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL. motion passed unanimously. ,~"`~ AI330URNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Luate seconded the motion, RaLL CALL,: motion passed unanimously. Nfeeting is adjourned 8135 P,~. .....~ ~ . . ;:.. ~~~ (}~'~ ,~tttscTstssc>nt I.t Planning Commission Minutes November 2, 1999 Page 3 Steve Sherbourne, 29 South Grape Street, Medford OIZ, is the agent for applicant asked Mr. Brennan about the scope of a storm detention plan and clarified the trash receptacle questions for the Commission. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve Resolu#ian 467 approving a variance for the off street parking requirements frazr~ l t to 9 and far employee maneuvering in the atley. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. R.t3LE GAEL: motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to pass Resolution 46$ conditionally approving a site plan application submitted by 13r. Curtis Tyerman to build a 2250 square foot dental building at the southwest corner of flak and Fourth Scree#s in a C-2, Commercial Professional District. The site plan is subject to the conditions of approval by the Planning and Public Works Staff =~teports:.~jThe AIley:will be improved just slang the length of the property #o handle the . employee-parking.area.'A 10 font PUE will be required Tong #he~property's frontage on Glak :and Faiu~th~:Streets,;except for the portion in front-af the :dentaL~building:whiclt wall~be reduced ~to.5 feet:~Commissioner~Riggs seconded the matian:~RC)LL`CALL: matia.n passed unanimously..: . , :. s= •~ C. Public hearin : to~consider a Site Plan Review that vrould .allow;the:addition of 756. s care feet to the -.buildin ,ownedb _::the.Znde endent Ba fist Church thatiwouldallowche existin .'793 s care foot :buildin at 32(3 West~Pine Street to be ex anded 756 s care feet.-~~: - Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, presented the Plarnz~u7g Department staff report. The proposed expansion is.intended to replace a portion of the building removed~for.safety reasons.just:recently. The addition would add a hallway to the ~txucture to separate the sanctxzarY from.the.class ;roams, and change the bathrooms from the back of the building to the franc of the building. There is a problem wit this construction. A portion of the new building is in the P"EMA designated floodway, which according to City Ordinance cannot be built in. Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, stated he did not prepare a staff report because the building cannot be enlarged within a floodway. Fred Brawn, 1{}1 Valley View Road, Ashland, OR, is the applicant for the church. Mr, Brown inforrrzed the commission that the area for development does not have a foundation and they want to build one. Lee Brennan, stated that since it doesn't have a foundation, it can't be remodeled. Commissioner Fish made a motion to continue the site plan review until the next meeting in ~~~ ~~ p~t~in~ ~~~~~~ ~sassible 15 REV__.,_?S~ ~~~ ~~~ Attacl~~ncnts: A. Revised Site Plan ~. Manning Commission Minutes Dated November 2, 1999. C. Staff Report Dated November 2, 1999 D. Public Works Memorandum Dated March 31, 240fl y ~ i "7 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMEJRANDUM MEETING DATE April 4, 20(}0 T4: Central Point Planning Commission FRC?M: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Continued Review of Site Plan that would add 756 Square feet to the Independent Baptist Church Applicant! Qwner: Independent Baptist Church 320 West Pine Street Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent: Fred Brown 101 East Valley View Road Ashland, Oregon 97520 Sumrnary• In November of last year, the applicant approached the Commission with a request to add 756 square feet to the Independent Baptist Church. The Commission continued the review to a later date since the structure was positioned in the flood way of Griffin Creek. If stnzctures are in flood ways, they cannot be modified, since they are classified as nonconforming. In the last few weeks, the church has hired a contractor to move the structure out of the flood way and to construct a new foundation. The structure has been rotated with the front door facing Pine Street {see attachment A}. The applicants would now like to complete the addition of the 7S6 square feet so that the church can have more meeting space and restrooms. The Commission should review the Findings ofFact from the original staff report {Attachment C }and determine they are still applicable. A possible parking scheme has been depicted on the revised site plan and approval may be conditioned upon use ofthis schematic as an alternative submitted by the applicant. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution ,approving the revised site plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or, 2. Deny the Proposed site plan; or, 3. Continue the review of the site plan at the discretion of the Commission. ., Q~~ ATTACHMENT E RECOMMENDED PLANNING DEPARTMENT C4NDITI4NS 4F APPROVAL The approval of the fence variance shall expire in one year on March '7, 20t}1 unless an application for a building permit or an application far extension has been received by the City. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 3. Utilities rr~ust be located by the fence builder prior to construction of the fence. There may need to be a modification ofthe fence near the utility boxes on the Southeast property corner. The fence builder shall check with the service providers to determine that the fencing near the utility boxes meets maintenance requirements for Pacific Power and US West, C~:1F'lanningl(}OC}O5. WPD ~ ~lJ ~ S3 ~ ~~~~~~~ ~:F,AR LOT L~N~ I~~STANC~~ IN N~~V ~AVE~'~I ~~TATF,~ LOT 52 66' LOT 87 76' LOT 88 74' LOT 56 82' LOT 53 82' LOT 47 84' LOT 37 79' LOT 62 76' LOT 21 77 LOT 6 112' LOT 11 83' o~.~ ~~ .. yS~ 1 ~~ ~~ ,~ } ~ }~ fi ~: h-~- ~~ ~t11 1 Git~ of Ce~t4r~I Print ~~~~.~~`~` cc~~s Piannut~ Dept ~. - ,~: w . ~ ~: . ' t: ,. , 4. --- --- Copies ~af all evidence relied upan by the applicant are available Far public review at City •`.,~, ~'~i Hail, ISS South Second Street, Central Point, 4regan. Capies aFthe same are available at ;. 15 cents per page, 5. .Par additianalrnFarmatian, the public may contact the Plancung Department at (541}~664- ' ..' `3321 ext. 291. 3lJN WAY ~4i xrl ~J y.IL FfI~ i.~~w~I,il ~:~~ r ty e i Y 4' :..«' .: CT't.k '; '~~r~,~yt 5~'sf~ ;ri :. y,~t +l ~[.'v°;tr r.k x ..~:1~.:~:k° ... III -; ,r_ .., 't3~"a ;f~~~,;'>~ 3 -~ .l'::: 155 South Second Street 1 Central Paint, C3R 97502. 541 664-3321 ~ Fax: 541 664-6384 11 '1 fl Czty of Central Poznt n~v~z~~ ~~~ ~~~~~ Notice of ~Zeeting Date of Notice: February 25, 2404 Matt Samitore ~'lanning Technician Meeting Date: March 7, 200U Time: '7:U0 p.m. {Approximate} Place: Central Paint City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Paint, 4regan NATURE 4F hrIEETINC Tam Humphrey, AICi' Ptanning Directac den Gerschier Community Piannec City uF ~~nn~rai ~'a~izx.t Planning Dep~-rtzrteut Beginning at the abave time and puce, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an request to vary from the fence requirements ofthe Central Paint Municipal Cade at 2662 Saint James Way. This parcel is located in a R-1-$, Residential Single-Family Zoning District. The Central Point Planning Commission is being asked if a six foot woad fence can be constructed along a side property line that ad,~aixzs Naples Dave. At the meeting, the Commission will review the documentation submitted by the applicants and will decide whether or not to grant the Variance. C RIAA FOft. DECiSItJN The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 1 S and l 7 of the Central Paint Municipal Code, relating to structure setbacks and fence variances. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the abave-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for 'I uesday, March 7, 20UtJ. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Paint City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Paint, OR 975C}2. 3. Issues which may provide the basis far an appeal an the matters snail be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted abave. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 155 South Second Street !Central Paint, OR 97502 ~ 541 664-3321 ~ Fax: 541 664-6384 (1 [~ To justify your request far variance, pravide clear facts and logical canclusians which satisfy each of the fallowing criteria. If a standard does not apply to your variance request, so state slang with an explanation of why you think the standard is not applicable, 1. The variance will pravide advantages to the neighborhood ar the CitYi ~. The variance will pravide beautification to the neighborhood ar the City; 3. The variance will pravide safety to the neighborhood ar the City; 4. The variance will pravide protection to tha neighborhood ar the City 1 ~.J-'` The variance wild. not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood; and ~_..~' The variance will utilise property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. ~' rl ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~1~~ 1~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~ ~~I ~ t~"~'- ~ ~, ,~ _u,u'~ _ ~~~ ~~:;~_~~ _ ~ _. "~ .. _ _ _ ~ . r~,, ..,~ , .;~' "' `,~ ~' _ _ .. r tom- ~ a ~ ~,~ --- i''%. . ~ >s a` ~ ~ ;~ ,y °"` ~^y ~ ~/ -' j '_ . ~~ -~~ .- / ~~-"= ...._ ~ ~--, j. 1. ~_ ,V~ 1i.'~ 13 ,', '" ~~'~'.~~'=-°-`~~^ _ ` ` - ' v,,\ .. ,~ _~. _ww. -- ,, 1 ~ ~ - ~ "t ~ ~ ~ _ ~~ ~~" ~-. J~ ti i ~,,, .,° ~ ~a4 - `,., f" y ~. ~: „_, ,'fr'o `~~ '~ ~~~. 1 , s/ €.~ ~:~ v c. The variance wi11 larovide safety to the neighborhood or tl~e city, The fence would not necessarily provide any additional safety ar secc~z•ity fa the neiglzbarhaad or the city if it were constructed at 42 inches ar 6 feet. d. The variance will provide protection to the neighborhood or the city, The fence would provide an additional degree of protection to the applicants by providing a safe place for a dog that they are planning to acquire in the future. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. The City has not received any correspondence in favor or apposed to the proposal. f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. The height and construction material of the proposed fence is consistent with municipal regulations in the Residential Single- Family zoning district. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: l.. Approve the fence variance application `based on the Endings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed fence variance application; or 3. Continue the revievr of the fence variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits• A. Site Plan and Applicant's Findings B. Notice of Meeting C. Digital Photographs D. Applicant's information on surrounding cots E. Planning Department Recommended Conditions G:iPlanningl[}0005. WPI7 To meet code, a portion of the six foot fence located in the side yard would need to be reduced to a height of42 inches in a 14} foot wide setback adjoining Naples l7rive. A 42 inch high fence would not block a direct view from passers by on Naples Drive to the applicants' rear patio. If a six foot high fence were constructed outside of the side setback, it would comply with the code but would encroach onto the covered deck {Attachment ,iCft }. Through research in the area, the applicants have determined that their lot has the smallest rear lot Tine size of the many they checked {Attachment "TJ" }. Qnly phases I, 2 and 3 of the tentatively approved New Haven Estates have been final platted. There may be other lots that will face the same fence dilemma as future phases are completed and a precedent could be set with the approval of this variance. The Hadleys' feel that if the builderldeveloper had disclosed the setback, they would have purchased another lot for privacy and security for a dog they would life to get. Mr. and Mrs. Hadley are requesting that the Planning Commission consider granting a variance from the 42 inch maximum fence height along Naples Drive. If granted, the variance would allow the construction of a six foot high fence along the property line adjoining Naples Drive {Attachment ~'A"}. If the proposed fence is located on the side yard, it would not conflict with the sight vision requirements of CPMC I'T.60.1 IC}. No conunents were received in response to the notice sent to neighbors on February 25, 20fl{}, Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law A variance maybe granted if fuzdings are made as follows: l ,The strict application o£ the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or 2. The Following considerations will either result from a granting o£the variance or the fallowing considerations do not apply to the requested application: a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city, The additional height of the proposed six foot fence would provide a more comfortable, private environment for the applicant's family. There appears to be neither an advantage or disadvantage to the neighborhood. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The szx foot wood fence would create a larger useable area for the applicants and would reduce the size of the landscape strip along Naples Avenue. v PLANNING IIEPARTN.CLNT STAFF ~:EPC}RT HE~~J~1NG DATE: March 7, 2000 Tfl: FRflM: SUBJECT: Applicant! Owner Agent: ~ummar Central Paint Planning Commission Ken Gerschler Community Planner Public Hearing -Variance to fence height requirements at 2662 Saint James Way (A tax lot number has not yet been assigned by the County Assessor). Robert and Ruth Hadley 2662 Saint James Way Central Point, 4regan 97502 Same (Refer to Exhibits A&C) The subject parcel is zoned R-1-8, Residential Single-Family. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to render a decision an any application far a fence variance. Notice of the Public Meeting was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24,060. A livable Law: CPMC 17.20.010 et seq. - R 1, Residential Single-Family Llistrict CPMC 15.20.450 et sect. -Fence Height an Corner Lots CPMC 15.20.480 et seq. -Fence Variances Discussion. The applicants' Mr. and Mrs. Hadley recently purchased the house located an a corner lot at 2262 Saint James Way in the New Haven Estates subdivision. Following the move they consulted a fence company who submitted a building permit application to the Central Point Building Depa€~trnent, When the Planning Depa~ent reviewed the application, it was determined that a portion of the proposed six foot wood fence would not comply with the municipal code. CPMC I S.2t?. U5~ requires that for alL corner lvts~ no fence shall be higher that six feet; provided however that no fence shall be Zia'glier Haan three and one-half feet where such fence is within the required setback area tr tit ~~~f~t7"' 1~ r,\~i c W D CIS Ll.-1 J ~- ~C REVISED .~, Recornrnendafion: staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: l . Approve the fence variance application based on the findings of fact contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Deny the proposed fence variance application; or 3. Continue the review of the fence variance application at the discretion of the Cozrzmission. Exhibits• A.Revised bite Plan B. StaffReport Dated March 7, ~~0~ ~~c~~Q~z~c~~i~~~~~,~to~osa.«,~d ~% City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March ~, 20(}0 Page 4 on the drive through window. There will be no net loss in parking, since they will be moving the parking to the West side of tlae propez-ty. Mr. Lee Brennan, City Engineer, has requested that the applicants also fzx their site drainage at this time, by addzng a small concrete berm or slotted drain, so that the majority of the on site water filters to the catch basins. Also he would request that the applicants also fix their driveway at this time as well The Agent for the Applicant, Gregg Hayes, stated that this drive through window would help alleviate traffzc problems. They have no problems fixing the driveway access and would be willing to loop at options to fix the drainage problem. Councilmen I7r. David Gilmour stated that he would just like to emphasize proper identification when customers ask for tobacco or alcohol, Commissioner Fish made a motion to pass Resolution 4"79, approving the bite Plan subject to the Flanning Department Staff Report and that the applicants submit a striping plan to the city and that the applicants fix the driveway and storm drainage problems within 60 days of drive through being completed. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. VII MISCELLANEQUS Mr. Humphrey asked for a second meeting this month to discuss ordinances and informed the Commission on a Historic Review Conunittee being formed. VIII ADJ'flURNMENT Commissioner Fish made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. Meeting adjauz-n.ed at 9:30 P.M. City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 20~{} Page 3 all the requirements except for one, whether or not the placement of a temporary home will have no adverse effect on abutting property. Several neighbors have submitted letters in opposition to the placement of tl~e temporary mobile home. The Applicant, Darold Hutsell stated that he had brought in a lot of material to build a second home on the site for his mother. After talking with the City of Central Point it was determined that a second dwelling unit is not allowed in that zone and the only course of action was to apply for the Conditional Use Permit. The material will be removed. Mr. llustell also stated he would put up a new screen fence from the edge of the garage to the property line to help mitigate. the problem. His mother is 94 years old and is use to living on her own and this would help grant that request. Mr. And Mrs, Danta, 5365 Teresa Way stated that they were in opposition to the placement of the mobile home and that it will de-value their property. The applicant never picks up his trash and they believe that if this were allowed in, it would never be removed. Randy Linkler, 5361 Teresa Way stated that the applicant cannot maintain his current house and that trash has been accumulating at the site ever since he came in and it would not be a goad idea to allow the mobile home in. Charlie Bentzan, submitted a letter and just wanted to reiterate that Mr. Hutsell also has old tires, carpet and cars that never seem to be cleaned up. The Applicant Mr, Hutsell stated that the tires and carpet were used far gardening purposes and that the cars all worked. He would also build a fence on the side yard of his property to help screen the mobile home. The mobile home can be moved behind several coniferous trees. Cammissianer Fish made a motion to pass Resolution 478 conditionally approving the Conditional Use Permit subject to the Planning Department staff report, setting the manufactured home behind the coniferous trees, fencing the front and side yards to the manufactured tame, with the recommendation that he fence the entire property, and agreeing with city staff an a landscape plan. Cammissianer Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. D. Review a site lan that would allow the installation of a drive throe h window at the Union 76 Matron at 1{}65 East Pine Street. The subject parcel is located in a C-4 ,Tourist and Office Professional Zoning District. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The Colvin Oil Company, has requested a review of a site plan that would allow a drive through window to be installed on the West side of the Union '76 gas station. The Applicant would protect the power on the West side of the building by providing a steel bumper to protect it. The City would like to have a striping plan showing a one way in City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2~0~ Page 2 Councilmen Dr..David Gilmour, 445 Manzarrita, stated that he thinks it's a good idea to add it to the Historical List. ROLL CALL: Commissioner Riggs made a motion to pass Resolution 4'77 recommending to the City Council, the Izsting of the house at 435 Manzanita to the City's historic inventory. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion. RC)LL CALL; Motion passed unanimously. B. Review a re nest b the ro ert owners at 2262 Saint James Wa to va from a maximum fence hei ht of42 inches in a side and setback area. The arcel is zoned R-1- $, Residential Sin~Family. Ken Gerschler, Community Planner presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicants' Mr. and Mrs.l=Iadley purchased the home located at 2662 St. James Way in the New Haven Estates Subdivision. When the Planning Department reviewed the fence application it was determined that a portion of the proposed six feet wood fence would not comply with the municipal code. In order to grant a variance the applicant must be able to meet the findings of fact and conclusions of law The applicant stated that his house is out of compliance since the side yard setback is not 1{} feet it is only 9 feet S inches. He has talked to the Cable and Power companies and can work around their boxes and that a 42-inch fence would not be acceptable to give the privacy he and his wife need. Lee Brennan, the Public Works Director stated that the Sight Distance Triangle for the Back property would have a 15 feet requirement, which he displayed for the applicants. Aber reviewing the building plan it was determined that some of the measurements may have been inaccurate. Commissioner Johnson made a motion to continue this item to the April Planning Commission to receive more accurate information on the lot dimensions. Commissioner Lunte seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. C. Public Hearin to consider a conditional use ermit that would allow a mobile borne to be tem oraril located behind a residence at 5366 Teresa Wa .The sub'ect ro ert is located in the R-L Residential Low Densi Zonin District on Jackson Count Assessment Map 36 2W 34D_,,,Tax Lot 214. Tom Plumphrey, Planning Director presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The applicant Darold Hutsell is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the placement of a temporary mobile home for his elderly mother. The Conditional Use Permit meets City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2C}fl0 Page 1 City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes March 7, 2000 1. MEETING CALZED TC} C)RDER AT 7:{}f} P.M. E. ROLL CALL: Chuck Piland, Karolyne Johnson, Candy Fish, Don Foster, and Wayne Riggs were present. Jahn LeGros was absent. Also in attendance were Tom Humphrey, Planning Director, Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, Lee Brennan, Public Works Director, and Matt Samitore, Planning Technician. ~ Ct~~SPCJNDENCE N M~~IUTES Commissioner Johnson made a motion to approve the Planning Conunission Minutes from February 1, ~fl00. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. R{JLL CALL: Johnson, abstain; Fish, yes; Lunte, abstained; Foster, yes; and eggs, yes. V BUS11tilESS A. Review and recommendation to the Ci Council on whether or not the house at 43S Manzanita Street should. be included on the Ci 's historical structure list. The sub'ect roe is zoned C-2 Commercial Professional and is identif ed in the records of the Jackson Coun Assessor as Ma 37 2'W (}3DD Tax Lot S lUC}. Ken Gerschler, Community Plac~ner presented the Planning Department Staff Report, At the last Planning Commission, February 4~h, Carroll Davis approached the Planning Commission about immediately adding his home located at 435 Manzanita to the city's Historic Inventory List. At the time the City had to give an opportunity for public connnent and thus had to postpone a decision until the March 7 meeting. Mr. Davis is requesting the house be added to the inventory so that he may obtain financing. The house is classified as anon-conforming structure since it is a single family structure located in a C-2 zone. If it is added to the Historical Inventory List it will allow Mr. Davis to receive financing to do improvements on the exterior of the home. The house has been identified as being on the city's historical list according to a recent staff study. The Applicant, Mr. Carroll Davis of 435 Manzanita presented the Commission with newer photos of the residence and stated that adding it to the Historical List will help get financing to make future modifications to the exterior of the home. 5$-'~'7 E. Public Nearing to review tl~e Tentative Development Plan fora 38 lot subdivision to be known as the Brookdale Gardens Planned Unit Development, The proposed subdivision is located in the R-2, Residential Two Family Zoning District on l~ackson County Assessors Plats 3`]2~N01 C, Tax Lots 1200, I300 and 3'12WO1CA, Tax Lot 3100. VII. MISCELLANEOUS VIIL ADJOURNMENT ~la._ ~,~ t°i, I`~~~.~i. C'ianT?lll~", ~~12'IT?l5sc~~t ~.:ny ~'lallulll~= C;}1,1L1t 1'iltulci - C'~illc3;' l ill, 17o 'ostr, I~.arolyne.lr!}lnsc~n, John LeCro, ~I'at,l LLIiItC aIx} hv'ayllc Ri~~t~~ Ili. C~l~~~t~:`~~sf)~`3)~•:i~~'~~'; ~,. FZc ~'i'°,~' tTrlr~ ~~aprov~~ o~'arch 7, ~'ii()~7 I'la~~~in Commission mil~utes ~~~P~t.4 ~--~ ~ e 1tC'ti'If:`j~' <l, I"C:f;~ll:;5t ~~~' till' i~Y'{l})~'f [V oti~"tli'.-l'1 ~If ~~~.~ .7i:ilrit,li111"ll'S `~~41tiJ i,C1 ~'Yll'} ~1'OIl! ct ill<i\ ITIIUi?1 I~-IIC:i. }1C 1'?;}?t O1 } ~ II?f;l"1('~ lIl ~! tilf.}l' V~iI'+_} SC;t}1c.C;} c i't:it. } }ll' }?Yll l'i'.} 1S Jl?Il;li}Z-}-~,~~t;`73f}C;il[l~l}~jlll'!C:}''~il~ill~'. }};1~I[C,71\~115f;()11i3IlllLC}})~''t}1G'}<ltlTllll`~ C'ol~~ll~is 5io?~ aTl lti~la~c}? 7'~", ~{)C)t) ulTtit I1?ol:; it~i«rTh~ltiorl cr.~ltlci bf; t~Tlt~t;rlc~, -;~~ Igo iZt~vicz~ ~; reclil,_~5t i?}' ti7r lnti~}~cYlcteYa1>=11~ti5t Churc)1 tf7 ac~c{ ; ~t> t,ual~f; feet tc> t1!c 5tru4tlu~L 30~ ~itec} at ?:?0 ~'~''cst I'il?~ `';tl~~ct. i }?c° slll?jcct prtlt~crty ?~ I~I1lcd IZ- ~~-~. ~~ hIS L1i'.II1 1;'tiS CC~T1tilllli:C~ ~1'(?il] II 1'LV10t15 171tit17?z' ~;~ ~~lt'. ~lYi?1t~ltl ~OI11I111111C111. 4_~g C. ~'ublrcllCt?I-il?~~,tf~cvr;~icP~T~?T~•illeSi~tYt~;niiic~L} (,iirY'~tnciCr,:c~t';~i~i11aJ)ilcidtf~ ~'llt :' i~c~rl~ tI1L Illir111?1tI 11 ~rf)rlt, side ~Ia~i s;~cc,~al sc,l}ctc1: rc~ltlil-el"~ltnts lol't9?c R-1-6 /:~`lltl~~ fll>tl~lti„i.. ~ l?C`. til?t7Jtl:i i~I'O~L'11\' t5 1<)~.~it~~ tit LiS ~ 1~('lUt;~ll;ii? 1~<)ttl~. ~~-~ ~~. I'1.li)IICIl1l,t.al14?t~~?:(?t?`,lf.~l°I'fa511..0~>iallSl.,~)?liltii',lli?~'L}1C'~rt~lr?_?C~~-~)l~tilYll~.~"U;_1C1 ~~ ,111~)~~' I(">l~i}1C. ii~17?t)I`ti(lil, I~i't10~~1i1i?i; cl!1C} Ct?il~}.I lailfli] t7j 5~ ,01'2!i 1>'til~illi;~TS f{)1',~~ I.'I lrlcl~c<IS;°hi~il~;)?~f1~111~11~iv;?{).t)l;(.),5C{~:al~etci/tot~:.ltc~. ~I1:~:i~t:llt~n,,Ts~lr~~it~fatlc~i I11 i11i` t~°:~. ~'~1+;)i"1)tl~'Illtli~l' ~ t)]Illl~ ,C':ii ;~(}~(1~~" (~I~+11~1C:~; i?il ,}~.1Ll~SC)11 ~..~t111i~ i~ ~,~;SCIt"5 l't~ts 3i'? l~,' ~ i3;-'~:1, `I Il:~ l.c~t 4fa~}~ anct 3`i ~`V 11 ~3k3,'T`ax Lots i i Cis), 7~UO. «~ ~F~~.. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPCIRT HEARING DATE April 4, 2000 T(_l: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom lvlumphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing -Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Plan. for Brookdale Gardens (372WOI C-Tax Lets 1200,1300 and 372W01CA-Tax Lot 310[}} Aguticant/ Owner: Hamrick Road Investment Corporation P.O. Box 5163 Central Point, Oregon 97502 Agent;. Neathamer Surveying 145 South Grape Street Medford, C}regon 97501 Summary: The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide three existing parcels into 38 small residential lots, a remnant lot for an existing house and a public park. The proposal is being presented as a Flanned Unit Development (PUD} which permits more development flexibility without the need to apply for variances. As the Commission. may be aware, PUDs must also be processed as Conditional Uses in the R-2 zoning district. Authority: CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on conditional use permits and preliminary development plans for planned unit developments. Notice of tha Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 ~ Attachment B}, Applicable Law: CPMC 16.10.{}10 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 1'7.24.010 et seq. -R-2, Residential Twa-Family District CPMC 17.60.130 General Provisions, Access CPMC 17.68.010 et seq. Planned Unit Development CFMC 17.76.010 et seq. Conditional Use Permit Candztit~nal I.Tse Permit: CFMC 17.28.030 lists Planned Unit Developments as a conditional use in the R~2, Residential Two Family District. Therefore findings far conditional uses must be considered with those for PUDs. Y ~~~ Req~~ired Findings foz- a Conditional Use Permit: Conditional uses require s~eeial cc~nsid~r•ation so that the}1 may 6ct lar•r~l~crl~~ located tivit77 respect t~ .. , the zoning title and their effect ern srrr•r•c~arndirlglarcrJ.~er•ties. The Planni~~g Coz~~mission in granting a Conditional Use Permit must find as follows: A. That the site far the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use and to meet ail other development and Iot rcquiretnents of the subject zoning district and all other provisions of this code. • The 4.54 acre area will be subdivided iota 3$ residential lots in addition to a separate parcel for the existing house. Tlie~•e is a 11,421 square foot lot committed to park area. B. That the site has adequate access to a public street or highway and that the street or highway is adequate in size and condition to effectively accommodate the trafl:zc that is expected to be generated by the proposed use. • Brookdale Avenue would be extended westward to set•ve this subdivision, A fifteen foot wide pedestrian easement located between proposed lots 1 and 2 would allow residents access to Hamrick Road's future commercial activities, Fart of the pa><•k area is identified as a future street reservation which will allow eventual access to property on the north that is not now ready fo7• development. C. That the proposed use thereof will have no significant adverse effect on abutting property or permitted use thereof: • The proposed subdivision would transpose a formerly rural character into a residential activity that is a permitted use in the R-2 coning district. Accommodations are being made to extend City infrastructure and utilities to adjoining parcels that could develop in the future. D. That the conditions required for approval of the permit are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. • Any approval would be subject to the requirements of Jackson County Fire District Number 3. t1CPP[~i'IIClCity Wicleli'Ianning10007.wpd 1,! t,7 e.1 Planned Unlt Developnl~Clt: A planned unit developme~~t (PUD} may be permitted i~~ a~~ R-2 zoning district subject to the approval ofa Conditional Use Per~~~it and a preliminary deveiopz~~ent plan. lfthe preliminary development plan is approved, an application for final develop~~~ent plan must be subzi~itted within six months of such approval. CPMC 17.65.010 states that tl~e purpose of a planned unit development {PUD} is to gain ~r-are effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site plan~ung and the mix of building types ar land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation. This is achieved by allowing a variety of buildings and structures, types of open space, variable building heights and setbacks, and shared services and facilities. The applicant met with staff and other interested parties earlier this year to consider various design alternatives far the project area. As a result, a 11,241 square foot park has been proposed more interior to the subdivision with some street options that preserve an histac•ic conifer tree which is perhaps the only signifzcant topographic feature on site. A PUD can be residential, commercial or industrial in nature. The proposed PUD is a single family residential development that consists of thirty eighfi {35} lots ranging in size from 3,245 to 6,359 square feet, Each lot will be constructed with a single family detached residence. One lot has been reserved as a remnant far an existing single family residence on the site and will continue to take its access from Hamrick Road (refer to Attachment "A"}. Access to the new development will be Pram Meadowbrook Drive {a public road }serving the 38 lots. The length of the roadway with a turnaround is approximately 600 feet which may be a concern to Public Works, Fire District #3 has no difficulty with the length but has stipulated that parking be limited to one side {refer to Attachment F}. CPMC 16.20.05{} states that a cul-de-sac shall be as short as possible and shall in no event be more than 400 feet fang or serve more than twelve single family dwellings. Eventually, a road connection will extend to adjacent property an the north through a portion of the park. A fifteen foot wide pedestrian access to 1-lamriclc Raad is shown between proposed lots 1 and 2 which will allow future residents fia walk or bike to the Pear Blossom shopping center. For safety reasons, a direct street connection cannot be made onto Hamrick Road. Each dwelling unit will have a two-car garage that will have a minimum 20 x 20 interior dimension.. The Public Works Department has reviewed the prelimina;y development plan for compliance with the City's water, sewer, storm drain and transportation standards. The Public Works staff report is attached as Exhibit E. 11C'PPDP1~C~tCity wideiPl~nt~in~t0007.~~r~ici VV~ Critel•ia for PUD; The applicant has prepared documentation that addresses the devclopzzzent sclledczle for a PUD set forth in Chapter 1'7.68 of the Central Point Municipal Code {Attachment C}. Staff has reviewed the development schedule and deterzxzined that the standards foz• a PUD cart be met for this project subject to the recommended conditions ofthe Planning Departz~~ent (Attachment D) and the Public Works Department Report {Attachment E). Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for PUD: In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases its decision on the following standards froze Section 17.68.(140: A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plaza justifies exceptions to the norrrzal requirements of this title; • The applicant's preliminary development plan proposes single family detached dwellings in the context of a planned community that is more consistent with R-I zoning and compatible with surrounding housing styles. The overall housing density is Tess that the maximum for the R-2 zoning district. S. The proposal will be consistent with. the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives ofthe zoning ordinance and other applicable policies of the City; +- This proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Housing Goals to the degree it ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing offered and promotes the open and free choice of housing for persons wishing to reside in Central Point. From a City policy standpoint, Srookdale Gardens promotes single family dwellings an smaller lots and other designs that potentially minimize the need for more costly and unnecessary municipal expenditures. Zoning code objectives can be met if recommended planning and public works conditions can be satisfied. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics of the PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development ofthe surrounding area;. +~ As has been stated, the preliminary development plan is consistent with the R-2 zoning and compatible with surrounding zoning and housing styles. The self=contained nature of the development will have Iittle impact upon the livability of surrounding neighborhoods particularly from the standpoint of generating pass through automobile tI•affic and limited pedestrian traffic. Infrastructure will be tied into new and existing systems which have adequate capacity, Property management and covenants will 1~CPPC}PDC1City WideiPlanningt0007.~vg~d V govern the maintenance anti overall appearance of the PUD. D. That the proponents of the 1~1JD Dave demonstrated that they arc financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six n~ontl~s of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction with a reasonable tine as determined by the Co~n~nission; ~ The applicants have provided design plans {Attachment A) a Market Analysis and a Development Schedule {Attachment C}. The development schedule indicafes that the applicants intend to begin their project within the time frame established by the City. E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; i There is one vehicular point of access and two places to accommodate pedestrian and I}icycle access. A future street extension is planned to the north which will also provide a third point of access for bikes and pedestrians. p'. That commercial development in a PUD is needed at the proposed location to provide adequate cornznercial facilities of the type proposed; • There is no commercial development proposed in Brookdale Gardens. Cr. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; +- There is no industrial development proposed in Brookdale Gardens. K. The 1'UD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, ifthese are present; + The preliminary development plan depicts a public park and landscaping at various locations including pedestrian access to Hamrick Road. An historic conifer tree has been preserved as part of the public park. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; • The Srookdale Gardens PUD is compatible with the su~•rounding area to the extent that it maintains a similar single family zoning density and architectural style. Its added benefit it that it will offer more affordable homes in the midst of expensive ones iICPPC)P[)C1City Wi<lelf'iannin~looD?.wpcf V ~ ,a ~ and will likely create a more diverse socioeconomic neighbvrhoad. Consequently, the PUD will be complimentary and compatible with neighboring properties. J. The PUD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land. • Private streets and, if required, open space will be maintained by the property owner and/or a homeowners association thereby reducing the need far public services provided by the City. I'tilarrower stree# right-af~ways reduce the amount of pavement that the City must maintain. Recommendation: The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary development plan for a planned unit development. l .Adopt Resolution No., approving conditional use permit and preliminary development plan for the Brookdale Gardens PUD, based on the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff reports; or 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit and preliminary development plan for the Brool£dale Gardens PI3D based on findings of fact articulated by the Commission. 3. Continue the review of the subject application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Tentative Plan-Brookdale gardens PUD, Building Elevations B, Notice of Public Hearing C. Applicant's Projected Construction Schedule D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions E. Public Works Staff Report & Recommended Conditions F. Correspondence tICPP1~P[1C1City WidelPianning10t1g7.wpd -~ Ll~~ O ~ ~~ ~ ffi X (1 1 .L ~. tit ~ ~ ,,..rte. ~ l u~ OG s ~Ll3eiX~~ ~~ deem 3 '~.i L~f~~fy ~1~ f c„krctHx~ {. ^ c7' 1 PY A ~~I~Y keN" ¢ #te ,,...-~ -° ~ W» ar Sic. +la sa ~+ t-x+ ~~° ~ icy, ~"~~' """ # Lc~~ '37 pf Paj~#e c~~" 1~ ~ a .~ w*af tt~.+++~'IPwt FOR: t~ ~ sue' ;. ~, t i~ e~~,,. ~°sa~~ ~srx ~~~ P$"~PA~~T3 ~~~,p,tl,rtr~ ~~Ixa'~~'r~ ,1~ 1~ #~, t „~~~d r~ ~ o,~' 1 ,..e..~ rx~ 1 ~, ~ +y"fhtYV? z f ,.~~, ~ `C;/ CSI rn~»~rfN'~Mr ^" p;a x C a+' Lat rNt ~..~.?:'"~`+M"'"y` '' ~ V `-` ~ A fi ~ 1 `~'"'~ '+M1~L'v ±?' e~^' --...r."~iK ~p~~~1°"~'~j ti='/' .~tp* \ 1.. ~w~*dt `"Me'° t "N{P1p"j *AV~ra M ~.. aA ~°°" iv ~ep* ~ * ~" .r "'~ ~ e~ n,r+ ~ i a++t'2'+^+rte ~'~''°' ~ _ ~.. ~* 4 * ,.,...----' ,,- `z4'w R~;~ ale .»rar/Jw'r'F / `` .. ~. ,aaa:+ ~,1,... ~ ~' `l t ~.,~q. `•,K,°''~ ' 4w re ~ • t+''„d..rt ~ .~ 1 U ~ A ~ ~ .• ~rrs* ~* ry ~, ` F,, o "a I,q 1*i ~A • ~""~ .uy~o`t* 'j _~ {X ti ~`~ ` ~ ~.~ ~~J ~,.., '~~ i 6b~, ~nay4"'iM ~1 1 se9° 'Z +L. ,e4'' a' {~ {~} tl ~ axz+x ~+A ...... ~r p,~°"«wr~,~..yt 1~ {~~„ ~,j i2C>. ~. ~( , 1 ~ ,xn ~,* i+ e~ ,~,~ r~ S 'iD3,lt' ?~~ ' ~ Tex ~ 7~° a~ ~xr 1 .^ 1 f i t;aY 4 Y1"%'~ 1 ,' !~" ~ .~ ~ ° ""~ ~~~ ~~ ~ td~ ~ ~TM `~y~, ~ +Ac~' °r r~ tycsK Pia t+~"^"~~ m ~ '~~ (,., smaia*xt e,d+ v»+~" f"°'"`°' r.:rPr",iwrt~..+k`pµc., . 9'°~".'~±?~""'rp~ iyo.~"~r'nmy ~~rrM+"" ~•~ ~a~T~'.'"ou~+''~'~" ~ - ~ ,„ ~ ~R~~X~~,~~ A~~~~~ - R~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ >xfth Par&~nL p~ ~ ~ ~ m r.,.. ~~~ C~`~~4 L.'" ra ~""" ~',~` M~ ,r ~ x w0i4~_ y, ~,aK+"} t~k'F~ y~dy aor~' ~, '" c" n+~~~~,~t tS ..aKa"''* V M~~ ~ ~~ wPtK r ~,w.q+t ' ro" H sfieltT ~a~~ N4~T F~~ ! w?cd~ ~~ '~ ~ Y~dr+4'~;yIM~~~ fN ~.Y.51~ l+M 'J Y/+' S ~ Y M RM pr +Yal~Sf4 ~ M>~ rvGfM~'F ~ M tN~ Y YM'~''rFS t { ~ ~A y, ~rdMie"r7 Mny{'1W ,W1 Yd Yd~C ...-~S^. w'~~ p„i,~++ey w~^ ~~~~e,rr e r+~e sr~'c"~s+~"' ,,,,c~~e.~"...~~~~'Q ~ II~~ 41~ ' ~~ ~i~~+Gia ~c~nt,c~~ ~~~~a~ ~iw ~ ` tnd~ x wwr' au«r•+rga"" .p. X1' ~1`i,.!'` ~jpf4ffi ~~ ~~gi f ~~ DR~V~~~ ..,,., ~~~ ~t~ .,.~ ~~~ <x+^~" r Sur'T`q arrac PR'~~'A1tEt~ ~~' ~~~ fioutA Cen~+'a ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~~g~ a { ~~, ,~.,,~~t ~3 ; ne ~ pj~ ~~~~~ nv~ss~` ate''' e ~ ~~~~ ~~ ..•, .~ ~ ~~ tu~i only rive are ~° ~~ girnilnr in ~ ~sb cr~e5 ~i11 cnnn°~ ~~~1. 'yuti~~n~ d ~ed ~~`°~ ~eievct~ions n a4~4~~0 ~Q't~Y l~iei5 ~~ wte ~ 1it o ~~ 1 'ten~nt~~e pltl ,~~yle, e~ un deveioP ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ __..._. . _. .._.._,Y.. i {„7 *w L ~.~ T tll A ~ ~ ~ ~ a i ~ ~ I ~---~ ... e-.--...1 ~ ~ h SS J S ~"""' ~ i ~~~3 ~ ~~ ~ 4 tU -~- , """"" I ~ 1 6` ~ M1I '~ ;y ~~ f' ~en~~r~r ~'ot~r~ I'.LAIVN~N~ .D.~`PA.t~T.~I.ENT' Tazn l~un~pl3rey, AICP Planning Director Ken Gerscliler Cozz~munity Planner Matt ~aznitore Planning Technician l'~otice of I'1~eeting Date of Notice; March 1~, 2a00 Meeting Date Time: Place: April 4, 2000 7.00 p.m. (Approximate) Central Paint City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon NATURE OF MEETING ~1ty of Centrai ~~~:~ ~~~~~ t~~. ti Pl~.nning Dep~r~mcu~ Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for a Tentative Subdivision on a parcel of property located near the intersection of Hamrick and Biddle Roads, The subject parcel is located in a R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 372W01 C, Tax Lots 1200,1300 and Plat 37 2W O I CA, Tax Lot 3100. The Central Point Planning Commission will initially review the application of Tentative Subdivision to determine if the proposed partition of the existing 4.54 acre total lot size meets the requirements of law. If approved, the subdivision would create forty parcels and a neighborhood park. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Tentative Partitions are set forth in Chapter 16 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations and Construction PIans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS 1. Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 4, 20(}0 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502. ~ - ~~`~ .._.~ 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shah be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City flail, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, C?regon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Qepartment at {541} 664- 3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY QF PRCICEDURE At file meeting, the Planning Cornznission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written corr~rnents must be related to the criteria set forth above, At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Tentative Subdivision Plan and Site Plan Review. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ' ~~~ 155 South Second Street i Central Point, DR 97542 i 541 664-3321 i Fax: 541 664-&384 ~ttuclrtxerxt C DEVELOPII~NT SCHEDULE BROO~DALE GARDENS, a Planned Community Dccembez' 23, 1999 Tentative Pian Application Submitted December 23, 1999 - April 3, 20(}0 City ofCentral Point StaffRaview and Public Notification Planning Cl~arette Tentative Plan Revisions April 4, 2000 City ofCentral Point Planning Commission Hearing and Public Hearing for 't'entative Plan Approval April 6, 200(1 Central Point City Council Hearuxg far Tentative Plan Approval April 7, 2000 May 3l, 2000 Preparation of Final Development Plan and Construction Drawings June 1, 2000 - June 30, 2000 City of Central Point Staff review and approval of Construction Drawings and Final Development Plan July 1, 2000 - July 31, 2000 Construction Bids City of Central Point Planning Commission Hearing for approval of Final Development J'lan City of Central Point City Council Hearing far approval of Final Development Plan Construction contract awarded. August I, 2000 - October 3 1, 2{100 tot Construction ~tovember 2040 Final Flat preparation and Recording December 2444 Home Constxtzction Begins ~1G 7famrickJ2oad Investment Corporation March 1, 2044 City of Central Point Planning Departrnenf i SS South Second Central Point, CC:frel;on 9'7542 Attn.: Torre Humphrey, Planning Director RE: Market Analysis for Brookdale Gardens P.U.D. Dear Torn, In your fetter dated January 2I, 2400, you indicated that the letter froth GJ Smith Realty, which was included in the Tentative Plan application did not meet the requirements ofan Economic Feasibility Report or Market Analysis as required by the City of Central Point PIJD fJrdinance. I am enclosing a Market Analysis study of the Central Point area. I trust that you will agree that this submittal requirement has now been fulfilled. As you will see in the attached Market Analysis, I have: l . Identified the types and prices ofthe housing available in Central Point by using the Southern ttregon Multiple Listing Service 2. Through the analysis of the above information identified a housing need that has not and is not being met in Central Point. I am sure drat after reviewing the attached information you will ogee that the type of housing being offered by Brookdale Gardens is both. desirable and needed to meet a market demand. Since the Tentative Plan was submitted on December 2~, I999, I have continued to add to and upgrade the housing designs that will be offered in Brookdale Gardens. I have attached 5 different front elevations and floor plans {others are ors the drawing board) that have been specifically designed for construction on these types of lots. These same home designs are being offered at a project in Ashland and are being well received. I am deeply involved in the marketing ofthese homes 'rn Ashland and can tell you that there are many people looking for this type of housing. I have several parties who have visited the Ashland project and are interested in Brookdale Gardens simply because they prefer to live in Central Point, but cannot find a home that meets their needs. Also, later this week I will be submitting the revised Tentative Plan that is the result ofthe Planning Charette efforts. Thank you for arranging the Planning Charette. While the overall design did nofi change a great deal because of the physical constraints of the property, I feel that the end product has been improved significantly. Sincerely, ~, .-'~~evin Hering, Prre'"sident 1-iamrick Road Investment Corporation I~vc~stn~~~l;s i~r CTcntr~c~1 ~c~int ~ttc~ c.~thc~t° 4~~oi?,r~hc~l°j~ C~~t?~~-~~~t l~~c°c~~i~~j~r~s ~~ `~ >F~. ,7fanrrickJ2oad Investment Corporation I3R44KDALE GARDENS MARKET ANALYSIS February 2$, 2QQ0 Success ofany development project depends upon the ability of that project to meet a need, or niche, in a community. Housing needs are dependent upon market trends, which tend to change with the age and economic diversity of a community, Currently the tnajar driving farces behind housing trends are: "T`he aging of the baby boomer generation, This generation, in many ways, shaped and defined the "American Dreamt°'. This dream is one afa successful family, career and home ownership. However, as this generation grows alder the kids have Ic#t home, for many, successful careers are winding down and are now being replaced with travel and leisure; but the dream of home ownership remains a central part of their lives. Por many, their name has been and continues to be the yardstick that measures success. However, as needs change, these same people are now finding that the large home with a large yard for the kids tap€ay in is no longer necessary and in many cases has become a burden. 'T'his is causing a shift in the housing market commonly referred to as "downsizing'°. The family homes are being sold and replaced with smaller homes with smaller yard areas. These homes and yards require less maintenance ar can be affordably maintained by a maintenance company. This downsizing trend however, does not include a compromise in amenities or quality expectations. Tn fact, for many quite the apposite is true. 'These buyers expect the same high quality construction they had in the family Name and many mare amenities that help add to the enjoyment oftheir new found leisure time. 2. The shift from the conventional work place. In the past, the typical wage earner worked on a fairly rigid schedule at the office or plant with little freedom or flexibility afforded in the typical workday. Due to the rapid progress in communications and computer technology many people are Ending that it is not passible to function and keep pace in a conventional work place with a rigid schedule. Communications and technology have brought the workplace home, where the added flexibility and convenience have been coupled with greater responsibility and longer work hours. The average American now works more hours than ever before and the home is na longer a safe retreat. While this has increased productivity and generally increased earnings, it has also depleted the amount of free time left to spend on family and other activities. Working people now have mare money to spend on recreational vehicles, travel and leisure than ever before, but have fewer hours to spend in the pursuit of these activities. This has caused another shift in housing needs, which in reality is similar to the needs ofthe baby boomer generation. These needs include a home that is large enough to live and work in comfortably, has enough yard space to provide privacy, Yet not so large as to require many hours of maintenance. This type of home provides the "American Dream" of home ownership, but allows the freedom to enjoy the free time they have left in the activities of their choice, rather than maintaining a yard that they don't have time to use. A€€ of the above is not to say that the conventional family home, placed an a medium to large sized lot does not have a place in today's housing market. `T'his housing type represents the greatest overall need and it will continue to be this way as far into the future as one can predict. `T'his housing need has been and continues to 6e well provided for in Central Point. The question is, does Central Point's current housing avai€abil'€ty meet the needs afthese new housing trends? "1°he answer simply stated is, No. In fact, curreEtt l~rvc.stm~nts ter C`~nt~~cxl f'~~int ~x~rd r~thcj~ ~St~uth~~~~t ~~r~c~rc~n lc~c°r~tta~ts ~`~~ Multiple Listings indicate that the average borne available in Central Point has 1,642 square feet of living space, 3.1 Bedrooms, 2 Baths, is 17 years old, is placed on a 14,446 square foot lot and is priced at $ 148,410. As you will see in the attached tables, only 8 of the homes available are placed on lots less than 6,044 square feet. Of these only 4 homes are less than ten years old and only I home is less than 1 year old. Older homes generally do not have the amenities necessary to meet the needs of these home buyers and most newer homes are placed on medium to large size lots that require a great deal ofmaintenanee. In recent years the City ofCentral Point has approved many small lot or pad lot developments. So, why are there so few available in the housing market? The answer is simple; these types of developments are popular and desirable. Most small lot developments however, have been targeted toward a specific market, the first time homebuyer or affordable housing. Most of these developments have a monolithic appe~~rance due to the lack of variety in home design. While this is more efficient and generally results in lower home prices, this type of development does not meet the needs of many of today's homebuyer's. Brookdale Gardens has been designed specifically with the needs of the two groups of homeowners described above in mind. The concept of Brookdale Gardens is intended to offer flexibility and ecsnvenience. Homebuyers will have the advantage of being able to select from a variety of home styles, sizes, designs and price ranges. Atl homes will complement one another by their overall appearance and wilt offer the necessary individuality that creates a sense of pride in ownership. AiI homes are specifically designed for small tots that will require less maintenance, allowing more freedom for the owners to enjoy their free time. In addition, Brookdale Gardens will contain a park area to accommodate recreational activities that require more space than that afforded in the individual yard areas. This park area will be available to all residents, affording space for family activities, but will not require additional expenditure of their free time. One of the purposes of a Planned Unit Development is to provide a method to allow alternative types of development. Alternative types of development attract homeowners with varied interests and needs. Brookdale Gardens is designed to provide just such an alternative to a ,group of homebuyers whose needs have not been met in the past. This helps to promote a community with. a greater sociological and economic diversity, which is necessary for the survival of any community. z ~~' Housing Availability in Central Point Arcurdiug tc~ S4ut6ern ©regon Multiple Listing Service Lot Size (square feet} ' . '. 6;098 House Size (,square feet) , ~ :. 1,413. Number Bedro4in5 ; ., ,3 Number Baths :::.. - . ' 2 Age {years) ~ .i Listing Price ~12~ 9Q0 .6,534 .: - `:::1 `439.: :.. ~ . . 2 . 5 , ~ 129,900 ,. 6,534. l}443 ~ '~ .3 ~. 5 ~1Z9,9f1(} 6 534. 1 587- ' : 3 - 2 I +~ ~/y ~ 136,900 6;660.. :::.:::.: ; ':-~,ga9' _ 3: ,.:: i $12113A4- 6;831.. _ ; .:.-I,tS35; `: " :3'. : = ' 2 1 $t4(};~?UQ '':.6,970 ' 1;053 3 1 40 $ 93,000 `.:6,970:: .. ".'.: ;; :-.. ` ;:1;413 ,_, ;3 " .::°.. ;.....::~ ` . ;' 9, $13#,900 .. -6,9.70:: .:. ` .. .: :.:..::.::.:1;549: - :::,:.,..:::..; .~:.: _.:~ , : _;:_:`:: .:: ;:;.:- 2`: .. ....:... , ..; :1 :. .. " ..$1'34;9(3{? 6,970. .:;:::`::. `:`1550.: :=::::.:°::-"::;>.:';::~3` .:..-,:.:..; `::::<'2. . 1. . $139;900 6,97 ~sac~ ~~ ~ . :: , ~ 1 ~~~s ~a .::; c;~~o : < -;; :.. ;; ;1;66 = ;.: ` ~ ; , .- ~,; ;,. ` ; : _ ~-;; ~ : i-s:1 = $140;900 °.:::7;405. '.. :.-.:: ,::-:: 1;08 _ .:.;; ~ :.'':: , :'_.:;3; `:_:'_'_;:.. ' :::: _~ °36 x'.89,900. >` .. .,:7"405: .,,.. ,:. ;_.--;:>':- -~ 4 5=° ~, ~ ==:::;:_:::::::";::~;~:_":;3;:; :;~:~:-:°;:_;.°,:_:.;::: :.~>:` ::..:::: ,-..:;:`2' ~ ~::,~136'~3f3{} , ._ :'fi 500::: : €:: .:., .:::':;1';00$: :: :: -.:' ::- ;.',~.:.: ;;'.:~:2., ..~':;~,.~ :::.:::.::...: •~ . ....., 5.: = ::::;::;; i`~',°:_91,-500 `:7°500 : :: 0:s ~ ~~ 1: 1'2 00 ~. 9`5 i Q~J~yy{ :''`>. -,~ 820 -. - ~{yyJ~ ::~2'03~r1 :~.~:.. ..S'~:r ~ -~:~~.. - ~ - m... WWW } ; . ;.~~::~ ~: ;..7.:841- ,,,y..: >s ,#i ;~.~ iy tv,.yn.,.. f-` ~::^:~.. - s>s .ri '~ ` L', . ~.S fem. a Y::. :^~. ' £~ : t .Y~/'. ~rny N. rsri y~' a. ~. k ' ~ f-:Y. .rx. ' . :~r.~d.r~. - V"" {+ .?,., 0.:. 5 ".i`-'i'.::.. ~~~.~~.~ ...1p-~..- - ,.-~.::.' • `{}...V.'ra :i x':71 w3~~~< Q~•ii:o f4~~ X843.. ~``` ..~y ~ 'r. at .-. L'~•i,i Y+°:.'':+b^.n S'~S`r•;:..£ ~ '}..' p Y :l '3 ~1 ;.5] ...~~taY d tM.' .'S+L ~-' ; °- z s sr•^_ , ~~~ - -tea - _ n~.i:' ra ~S." .r' ;5&;,`L?wey`x'.'tN .~.7T.'..r° ~S .~ {.. i £ Y'r ~5+r~.~{ ' i~ 'LL :1,`";~ :~/i; a` ~ ~ ~~ '~ ; i`y~.. '+i''i` »:f;: itD 3 ~,~+.~~'3 +r " .~2 .. 3ti.:. ,~ ~t.}}~ ~-i~,. ~~~'~» : - .:.3'ri'.='n:+'Y~i F"'%x`' ...r'.. r.S :v'.'Sti:a~v'i: `4: r., .. ~: ~.: y:r/.1~ ....4,"~J~+a.. >$asY'N"~:3`'1G.. L~ 9 ;~ .~:..~~ gx lti~~~ :'ry$r,}'- ? - ,:f`„ni~. L'..431. ft~ .ki'~ty~ : d~'tF',~x - Y' .y.+.Y. ~%~.f <"~ . Y ~,'*.'~'~s fte.: f. ~~o -.?~. i .i?E;i.< f~'u;•'~i`.'•~. " - ...'.S _ ~D_Y~'r' ~.~~ 1 ..f. 4';`i cs~;-. ~,:^z:. r-~... L ~ y v*3.~.,:~"" .16> -:. sF 1+: rf ..-f; `>. ..ti v ~i:,~.. ;x>t .}.`~~f~Jy"" ,, ;lnu ..?«..ar..lr~`'y~, :~ ~ .;7: v.:?Y'f} :f~i .if 'r'ya' .fir t' ".''car'~.::£~'~?Y' f ~~ . Sa ~? ... ~A2)'?w 1, ~. ~ ~ ~ ~s~~ ':: ::^».'r'.,« `?i'#,a....,r.,.... _ y~~ :.. f i:~?''..f `.~'3. `:" -r.^f i': ~.7.: x~..,.r' - ~y~ : ~+,•`rh ~~~'~UVe:: ... ... ...,;5 ....:841, .,...-:~,:~.~...-.:..:.:s1 X50.. ~... e.-y ~.. .:;,.<-.. t:...-,~:. r.:::--.,J,, .. . rya ~?s..., .~.,a nt3ut ~'*L~.:., - .,.j:;l ~, - .>~sD. ~~ 8 > 1^C10C3.: . j~~ `.'~'. ~:. ~' ~~ 500.- '7,8.1 4 °;:'1' ~' ,723_. : 7., :,~.: _. '::;':` 2.5 °.. ;. `.` :1.. _ . ,.`.::.-..;:$154900 .7;841 1,75& - ... 4 :; ..,'- :.. " ' . 2 ;' 40 -' .' ° , ." .•: X129 9{30. '7,841 1;258 3.: .~..:..: 2 . :. ' ..~. _ ..:.. ' .:8{3 . ,~i04,900 . ~ 7 , 841: ', 1;9 7 2 ~' : 3.,~ :.'-:..' r ' ' : ": " '::; _:2.. . 1.. . ,....' . '.. $1 0 . 59 94 r ~ p t,~0i01 i + ~+ ~ 4 ~~tJ4 _ 7 ,... G " 2 rJ t ry / ~~JV,~l3~f 8107 1;800 3 2 1 $156;900 - 8,276 i 597. ::3. 2. 18 ":i37 720: .8,276 1-384' ": 3 2 - . - `.::14:. .. -~3~'~#},i3 8,276. .1.482 4 1.5 41:; " 1t3~<t~(#tl 8,276 1,498- 3 2 '~.` :-..., ' _ :$1~9"~{}0- 8;276 1,505 3.: 2: .:.":..:.::. .:.:14' :::.::.::"';~1.~{}l'lfl: 8;276 1560 3 - 2. . ~ `1! -.-: ~~.56a~~ 8,276 1,600 3 2 1 ' . ' $16:1~~9£30: 8 76 1 652 3 3 9. X13$ 5.0t3 8,276 1,749 3 2 6 $155 9(30 ~1; ATTACHMENT D PLANNING DEPARTMENT REC©MMENDED CONDZTIpNS C1F APPROVAL 1, Prier to final plat approval, the applicant shad submit to the City a copy of the proposed covenants, conditions and restrictions {CCB~Rs} for the Brookdale Gardens PUI~. ~, The applicant shall comply with all requirements of affected public agencies and utilities as they pertain to the development of the Brookdale Gardens PUL}. Evidence of such compliance shall be submitted to the City prior to final plat approval. 3. The applicant shall comply With all federal, state and local regulations, standards and requirements applicable to the development and construction of the Brookdale Gardens PUI7. 11CPPI~PDCiCity WidetPlanning10007.wpc3 t1 ATTACHMENT E THE PUBLIC WORKS STAFF REPQRT WALL BE DEL~VEB.ED SEPARATELY PRIC}R T4 THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING l\C~'PC}~'I}CiCity Wide\Plar~ning\0{}0'7.wpd I e~~2a~~eee a~. es e~~as~,s 3c~~ t~ arc ~~~ e~ FIRE DISTRICT No. 3 8333 AGA`CE RaAD, wNITE CITY, f7K~GQN 97503.2075 ~`~ dF Cex~t~al Poixtt (54I) 826-73,00 FAX ~5~3-I~ 8~6-~56& ~~~~.~~ ~t~ tt www~jcfd3,cam p~a~txtit~~ Depaz~nen'~ March 2~-, 2U~a City of central Point Ken Gerschler Re. Broolcdale Gardens p~t~~~~C~ MAR 2 4 2000 IU Fire District 3 has reviewed the site plan far Brookdale Gardens and approves the project with the fallowing conditions. 1. Install ~~.~ Fire Hydrant midway on Braakdale Ave. Location to be approved by Fire ~istr~ict 3, The Fire Hydrant shat! be painted to Fire District 3 standards. ~. P'arking shah be allowed only can one side of Bt~aakdale Ave. The curb, can one side, shad be provided with signage stating "N4 PARKI{~IG" every 25', Contact Fire Disttrict 3 far requirements. 3. "hla Parking" signage shah be placed an both sides of private streets A£rB. ~-. All homes shalt have address signs that are clearly visible front the street. If you have arty questions please give me a call. h3eil Shaw deputy Fire Marshal ,~ ~"~~i CITY OF CENTRAI POINT L~EPARTME/VT OF PUBLIC IN~}RFC~S STAFF REPORT far BROOKDALE GARDENS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TENTATIVE PLAN REVIEW PW#IJ00©7 Date: March 31, 20(30 Applicant: Hamrick Read Investment Corporation ~HRIC}, Post Office Box 0103, Central Point, Gregor 97502 Agent: Bob Neathamer, Neathamer Surveying, 145 Grape Street, Medford, Oregon 97501 Property Owner: Project: location: legal: Zoning: Area: Units: Plans: Report By: Purpose Star {1200}; Coryeli and HRIC {1300}; and DeCarlow Nomes Inc. {3100} Brookdale Gardens P.U.D. North of E. Pine Street; East of Hamrick Road, and West of Meadowbrook Drive. T37S, R2W, Section 01 C, tax lots 1200 and 1300; T37S, R2W, Section 01 CA, tax lot 3100. R-2 4.54 Acres {approximately}. 40 spaces {38 pad lots, 1 "pocket park", and 1 "remnant" lot}. 1 page entitled "Tentative Plan Brookdale Gardens, a Planned Community", dated March 20, 20100. Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant {hereinafter referred to as "Developer} regarding City Public Works Department {PWD} standards, requirements, and conditions #o be included in the design and development of the proposed planned unit development. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the proposed development. Special FZegairemer-ts Exis#in fnfras#ruc#ure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure {i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,} will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows andJor demands imposed on the exis#ing infrastructure as the result of the connecfion of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by {as applicable}, the regulatory agency, utility owner, andlor property owner involved. 2. Residenfia! Lane: The Developer is proposing the use of public streets with a modified residential lane street section with a cul-de-sac end, a street outlet, and a private street. The PWD has approved development of this residential lane concept on Shelterwood, Griffin Creek Estates, Lindsey Meadows, Beail Estates IV, and Parkwood Terrace Estates subdivisions. Typically residential lanes have been designed to serve a maximum of 12 lots. The proposed layout will serve 38 lots in one direction. The Developer is proposing a "residential lane" public street with a 22-foot-wide paved section, with 3-foot-wide rolled curbs on both sides of the street. This provides for a driveable road surface of approximately 26 feet. We would Brookdate Gartter~s f'tJI? Tetatattve Plarr 1,'eview PF#~D Staff't2eEJOrt Pale 2 recommend that the paved-section be increased 2 feet to 24 feet in width to provide a driveable read surface that wauld provide fora 28-foat-wide driveable surface {2 ten-foot wide travel lanes and one eight-foot wide parking strip}. The applicant has also proposed parking an one side of the street: the south side of the street. The PWD is concurring with fhe requirement that parking be limited to one side {preferably the south side of Braakdale Avenue}; with a further restriction fhaf only automobiles and pick-ups be allowed fo park on the sfreef. We would also recommend fhaf no parking be allowed in the first 100 feef of Parkwoad Terrace from Meadawbroak Drive, to facilitate vehicular Earning and access movements associated with this Intersection. We would also request that Braokdaie "Avenue" be renamed as Broakdale "Lane" to coincide wifh the City's classification of the sfreef as a "residential lane" and not a "standard residential street". The residential lane standard for this proposed development with parking permitted an one side, wifh a robed curhlgutter section, would have the following minimum requirements: A 24-feat-wide paved section, with a 2 percent crown ~! A 3-foot-wide railed curb and gutter section t A ~-foatwwide sidewalk section {6-inch thick wifh strengthened edge} located on both sides of the street with suitable wheel chair ramps at all intersections. ^ A 2.5 foot-wide strip of land to be located behind the sidewalk far installation of water meter service boxes, fire hydrants, etc. ~ Requires a 45-fact-wide right-of-way. ~ Street parking allowed an one side only. The applicant has proposed 6-foot sidewalks which are acceptable fa the public works department, but which will require additional right-of-way dedication. The applicant is proposing to utilise a sfreef crass seatian fhaf has a 40-faaf-wide right-af-way and which will have a ~.5 faaf easement loaated behind the sidewalk {and corresponding right-af--way} far placement of the City's infrastructure {i.e fire hydrants, water meter boxes, sfreef lights, etc.}. These facilities are normally placed within the City's right-af-way. In Ilght of the depths and widths of the lots fronting on to Brookdale Lane, it is the PWD recommendation fhaf the right-of-way width be increased to 45-feet and the City utilities would be installed within the right-of--way. It is further recommended fhaf the minimum setback tram a garage to the right-af-way shall he 20 feef. It is the PWD's understanding that the 32-foot width an the park is far future read purposes. Since the right-af-way far any read connection would be either 4Cl- ar 45-feet-wide, this should be illustrated an the plat wi#h fhe designation of the area far future read development. This will reduce the area available far the park from 11,421 square feet {sf}, fo approximately 10,650 sf {with a 40-faaf right-af-way} ar 10,185 sf (with a 45-faaf right-af-way}. lE is further recommended that the Developer be required to develop this street section with the development of the proposed project to the northern limits of thL prajec#. Parking aauld Ere made available on this sham section, with a temporary concrete harrier rail ar ether suitable barrier placed at the northern end of the parking area to prevent vehicular access to the earth, until such time as the adjoining properties are redeveloped. 3. Private Street: As discussed with the Developer, this private street Is only far access fa lots 1, 2, 3, and 4, with access from Braokdale Lane. There will he no direct vehicular access to Hamrick Road. lE is recommended that a railed gutter section {with suitable corner radii} be installed of the end of the private drive/connection to the radius of E3rookdale Drive. with a suitable concrete drivewaytpedes#rian access way {minimum width of 12 feet} installed at the I3rookttale Cartlt=rrs !'(rl) lerucrtr~•c /'tarr ltcrit~x{~ I'Iirl? StctJJ'lc'eIx>r7 1'cr~xe .i north end of the private drive, connecting with the sidewalk of Beebe Road. A suitable breakaway gate or bollards will need to be installed to prevent non-emergency vehicular access from the private drive to Hamrick Road, but which would allow emergency vehicle egress and pedestrianlbicyclist ingress and egress from the private drive to Beebe Road. The Developer has proposed to have the pedestrian utility easement to be 1 ~ feet wide. To facilitate the placement of two or more City1BCVSA utilities within this easement, the easement would have to be a minimum of 20 feet wide {as discussed below}. This "pedestrian waylutility easement" would be for pedestrianlbicycle access and for City1BCVSA facilities only, and not as a public utilities easement. GityIBCVSA facilities are not to be placed within a Public Utility easement that has access by natural gas, electrical, cable, or phone company, or other hazardous material conductors. It is recommended that the northern and southern ends of the private drive be a standard curblcurb and gutter radius section that connect to the driveways of lots 1 and 4. 1~or private street section B, the developer is proposing a ~-foot wide sidewalk on both sides of the private street. The PWD is recommending that this street section be changed to {going east to west} a 4-foot sidewalk, the 3-foot rolled curb section, a min 2(?-foot paved section, and a standard gutter section if the street section is crowned, or a standard curb if the street section is "valleyed". 4. Street [.fights: The Developer has requested the use of private street lights in lieu of the standard street lights required by the City. PWD would concur with the use of private street lights on the public and private streets, as long as the street lights installed provide the same or better illumination of the street and sidewalk areas as typically provided by the City's standard X800 lumen street light, at 2f10 foot spacings. The street lights would be either privately {i.e homeowners association} owned, operated, and maintained {including power consumption costs}; owned, operated, and maintained by the City at the homeowner's expense; or owned, operated, and maintained by Pacific Power {excluding the private street}. 5. Hamrick Road f~i ht of Wa Access Fencin and fm rovements: Hamrick Road is identified as a secondary arterial. Current right-of-way width on the eastern half of Harnriek Road ranges from 30-feet {undeveloped areas} to ~0-feet in width {along Central Point East [CPE]}. The existing right-of-way width adjoining the subject development's property is 30-feet- wide from centerline. The County's current development plans specify a road section that will not be able to accommodate the installation of sidewalks and street appurtenances behind the curb, Within the current right-of-way. The County Will also be installing a northbound right-turn deceleration lane on Hamrick Road at the Beebe Road entrance to CPE. These improvements will require additional right-of-way dedication to facilitate installation. C}ther facilities such as a bus pull-out and acceleration lane from Pine Street may need to be developed in this portion of Hamrick Road. The City PWD is recommending that the development be required to dedicate an additional 20 feet of right-of-way along the development's property frontage with Namriek Road, as illustrated in the tentative plan. We are also recommending that no permanent access be allowed onto Hamrick Road from the Development's property. A suitable fence {preferably constructed with the same types of fencing materials and construction which matches the other fencing at the entrance to CPI=} should be installed along the property's frontage with Hamrick Road, with a provision that no gates be allowed to be constructed in the fence which would allow ingress or egress to Hamrick Road. if the Developer will require temporary construction access to Hamrick Road to facilitate construction equipment traffic {thus minimizing impacts to the existing paved roads of CPE=}, then the City PWD would concur with this temporary access if it is approved and as permitted Braokdale Gardens PUI) Tentative Plan Review PWL7 Sta~j"Report Page 4 by the Jackson Gaunty Raads and Parks Services {JC Roads}. The PWD is also recommending that the Developer be required to design and construct the necessary improvements to Hamrick Road along the property's frontage with Hamrick Raad that are not being constructed as part of the County's planned road improvement project with Hamrick Raad. The impravements would be constructed along the entire portion of the 241.12 foot length of the western boundary of the plat for this development. These improvements include, but are not limited to, an acceleration Ianelbus pull-out {as applicable}; a 6-foot wide sidewalk {preferably meandering sidewalks set back a minimum of 3-feet from the back of curb}; an irrigated landscape buffer similar to the one required for the CPE development and in conformance with the City's collector/arterial street cross-section being proposed in the revised transportation system plan; street lights; storm drainage; fire hydrants; and traffic control and delineation. All impravements shall be constructed in accordance with Gity standards and shall be coordinated and approved by JG Roads and the City PWD. As approved by the City Administrator, the Developer may request or be required to defer any or all of the required improvements along Hamrick Raad anti[ a later date {lout no later than when the redevelopment of the neighboring tax fats occur). If any or all of the improvements are to be deferred to a later date, then the Developer will be required to enter rota a suitable deferred improvement agreement with the CitylGounty far the deveiopmenttimprovement of the noted improvements along the development's frontages with Hamrick Road, as required and approved by the JC Roads and Gity PWD. fi. RRVl1,7 Facilities: if the development will require the alteration or modification of existing RRVID irrigation facilities, then the Developer should be required to coordinate with and perform the required alterations/modifications to accommodate the proposed development and maintain the RRVID facilities. It is suggested that the modifications to the RRVID facilities may include developing a surface water conveyance feature that may be incorporated into the improvements of the pocket park, if feasible. 7. Utility_Easements: A dedication of a 10-foot wide public utility easement {PUE} should be required of the Development's properly along the adjusted right-of-way on Hamrick Road, and adjacent to {behind} the Gity's right-of-wayleasements of Brookdale [,one, along both sides of the public and private street section "A" of Brookdale lane, A 10-foot wide PUE should also be dedicated immediately to the west of the private street section B easement boundaries. The public utility easements within the private street road sections shall be changed from "public utility easement" to "CitylBCVSA easement". Any Gity infrastructure installed outside the City's right-of-way will require suitable easement dedication, meeting current minimum required easement widths far infrastructure separation for installation, maintenance, and repair. 8. Sight-Triangles: Field review of the subject property's access to Meadowbrook Drive indicates that the sight-triangles can be developed that afford the proper sight triangles for a local street connection to the collector streets. These types of street intersections require establishment and maintenance of a minimum 55-foot sight triangle. This will restrict development on lots 22 and 23. It is also recommended that lots 22 and 23 take driveway access off of Meadowbrook Drive, near the northern boundary of lot 23, and the southern boundary of lot 22, as safe driveway ingress and egress from these lots off of Brookdale bane may no# be able to be maintained. Current City standards require that the throat of the driveway be located a minimum of 2~ feet from the right-of-way intersection of two-streets. 6rookdale Gardens PUI7 7`entative Plan Review PF3'C? .Staff Report Page S Sight vision triangles on lot 5 and the park of 25 feet may also restrict development in these areas. The driveway location problems of Tots 22 and 23 area also experienced on lot 5. It may be better to take driveway access for lot 5 off of the private drive. 9. Traffic Control Device Si nal of the lnfersecfion of Hamrick and Beebe Roads: A traffic signal has been identified for installation at the noted intersection to afford safe pedestrian and bicycle access crossing of Hamrick Road by residents of the proposed development and ether residents of CPE and surrounding developments. Similar to what was required of the other neighboring developments within CPE, it is the PWD's recornrnendation that the Developer should be required to abide by the requirements {including the payment of funds for the Development's apportioned share of the costs for the traffic signal design and implementation} of a City and Jackson County approved cost sharing agreement or fee structure which provides the necessary funding for the design and implementation of the traffic signal. 10. Hamrick Road Water Master Mefer and Main Transmission Lines: The Development of the northeast area of the City required the installation of a new water master meter connection to the City of Medford Water Commission facilities and construction of new 'l2-inch- and 1S-inch- diarneter main transmission lines. Since these projects were not identified in the City's water system Capital Improvement Program, the CPE, Walnut Grove Village Mobile Home Park, and New Haven Estates residential developments were conditionally approved with the requirement #hat the master meter and main transmission lines were to be installed by the Developer's at the developer's expense, and conveyed tq the City after construction completion. Any request for cost reimbursement was to be developed by the Developers and submitted to the City for review and consideration. The cost reimbursement methodologies and agreements have been established and 13rookdale Gardens is identified as one of the participants in the cost share. '€1. Pocket Park and Landscape Buffers: The PWD is encouraged by the proposed development of the pocket park within the development, due #o the limited amount of backyard space available on the proposed lots. It is the PWD recommendation that these park facilities be designed, developed, and constructed by the developers {at the developer's expense} as part of the development of this project. It is our enders#anding that this pocket park will be owned and maintained by the homeowners association established with the development. The noted landscape buffer along Hamrick Road will be implemented by the Developer and established and maintained by the Developer for a minimum 1-year period. Maintenance of the buffer after the initial `€-year period woufid then be the responsibility of the City. 12. ,Sidewalks: Sidewalks within this proposed development {both private and public} will be designed #o accommodate a single unit truck, and the weight requirements of Fire District No. 3. They shall be constructed of Portland cement concrete with a minimum depth of 6-inches. 13. Water Disfribution System: It is recommended that the water system for the development and neighboring properties to the north and south shall be master planned, to not only accommodate the needs of the proposed Development, but to provide for mainline valves and stub-outs for future main distribution networks and "reinforced looping" of the adjoining properties to the north and south. The water distribution far the proposed Development shall be of ureinforced loop" design; a minimum of two connections will need to be made to the City's distribution system: one connection to the '12-inch line in Meadowbrook Drive, and a second connection to the 16-inch-diameter line currently being constructed along Hamrick Road. The water lines shall be sized to accommodate all fire demand flows of the development (minimum 8-inch-diameter}. Braakdale Gardens PUL7 Tentative Ptan Review PWD Staff Report Page C> General ~. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special speeificatians, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD far approval prior to implernentatian. 2. Developer shall provide copies of any permits, variances, approvals, and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited to, the Oregon Department of p`ish and Wildlife {DFW}, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality {D~Q}, Oregon Division of State Lands {DSL}, U.S. Army Carps of Engineers {AGQE}, affected irrigation districts, and JG Roads, as applicable. 3. Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings, If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form {produced on Myla~'} and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD~, or other form as appraved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to i:~nal approved construction plans that identify the locations and ar°elevations {as appropriate} of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; road alignment; water lines, valves, and 1'fre hydrants; water and sewer lateral stationing; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet lacations; street light lacations; other below grade utility line lacations and depths; etc. Provide a "red- line" hard copy {on Mylar~'}, or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable Au#oCAD~ compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise appraved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchimark shall be tied into an established City appraved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer. 5. If applicable, all existing concrete, pipe, building materials, structures, clear and grub materials, and other deleterious materials shall be removed from the site and either recycled or properly disposed of in accordance with the requirements of the DEQ. fi. Easements for City infrastructure {i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if applicable]} should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five {5} feet from the edge of the easement. If two or mare City awned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width for the easement should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds ar CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. Brraakdale Gardens PtJL7 Tentative Plan Pieviety PWL} StaffReport Page 7 7. Prior to the City PWD fins[ approval of the construction plans for the proposed improvements, the following should be submitted: d A copy of written approval from Fire District 3 of the final street and driveway layout, site access, fire hydrant placement, and water system improvement plans for the proposed development. :l The plans relating to the sanitary sewers should be approved in writing by BCVSA, and the appropriate signature blacks should be completed on the plans. O A cagy of written approval from JC Roads regarding Hamrick Road improvements {as applicable} and temporary construction access connections to Hamrick Raad. ~. Field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations {i.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, top of banks, ditchlchannel inverts, street elevations, etc.}, to which the prapased development's infrastructure will connect into existing Improvements, prior fa final construction plan design and submittal far final approval. 9. Overhead power lines. If applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power and 1~ight, US West, and TCI Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable €acllities within ar adjoining the prapased development {excluding those major power and telephone facilities that are aligned along Hamrick Road} to underground facilities, prior to the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. Ali agreements and casts associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utility owners and the Developer. '1 £3. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed (bath horizontally and vertically} an the construction plans, as-built drawings, and final plat map. '11. The Developer=s engineer ar surveyor shall provide to the Public Works Department a drawing of the recorded Final Plat map reproduced on Mylar~ and in an acceptable electronic form in AutoCAD~' format. The Final Plat shall be fled to a legal Government earner and the State Plane Coordinate System. The Final Plat shall either reflect or be later modified to reflect any applicable "red-line" changes noted in the construction "as-bunts°°, at the discretion of the City Administrator ar his designee. 12. If applicable, Developer shall provide a Statement of Water Rights {on a City approved form), for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer will coordinate with the State Watermaster the re-allocation of any waters attached to lands no longer irrigable as a result of the prapased development. Streets/Traffic Existing Improvements - Hamrick Road -Secondary Arterial. Current ROW 60` wide, varying street width. Right-af Way required: 5(7 feet east of centerline. Meadawbraak Drive: Varying street widths with 6D-foot right-of-way widths. Brvokdate Gardens PU2? Tentative Plan .Review PWD Staff Report Page $ Corns#ruction drawings for this Tentative Plan shall include a Stree# Lighting Plan. Additional street lights will also need to be Installed or existing street lights possibly modified along Meadowbrook Drive to afford proper ligh#ing of the public street intersection with the proposed development. 2. The City PWD, at the cost of the Developer, shall evaluate the strength of the native coifs and determine the street section designs for Brookdale Avenue in accordance with the City PWD S#andards. Minimum stree# section for this street shalt be as follows: -- 3-inches Class "B" A.C. - 6-inches of ~"-0" crushed rock - 8-inches of 4"-0" crushed rock {City of Medford specifications}, - Woven geotextile fabric over compacted subgrade. Street section {excluding the asphalt concrete portion} shalt be extended underneath and a minimum of two feet beyond the rolled curb and gutter section. 3. As applicable, stop signs and traffic delineation {i.e. "stop bars"} shall be required acid installed by the City PWD {at the Developer's expense) at the proposed development's intersection with Meadowbrook Drive. No parking signs and curb painting shall be installed by the City PWD {at the Developer's expense} along the first 100-feet of Brookdale Lane from the intersection with Meadowbrook Drive. Storm Drainage, Irrigation Improvements 1. During the design of the storm drain collection and conveyance system {SD System}, which shall provide for and convey storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development {either surface run-on or culvert or creek/ditch conveyance}, the Developer shalt demonstrate that the storm water flows from the completion of the proposed development {and at any time prior to completion of development} do not exceed predevelopment flows; or that existing capacity, allowances, or provisions have been made {and approval of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has been obtained}, which accommodate: any additional flow which exceed predevelopment flows. The Developer and the City PWD shall agree on the applicable run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to tae used in the engineering calculations. 2. The developer shall develop a facility plan for the storm drain collection and conveyance system which provides for run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development, any future development on adjacent properties, and any areas deemed by the City that will need to tie-into the proposed development's storm water collection and conveyance system {i.e tax lots to the north and south of the proposed development}. It is our understanding that the storm drainage infrastructure within the proposed Pl1D will be a public system, operated and maintained by the City. Storm drainage conveyance pipe stub-outs, through suitable easements in the development, will need to be provided and s#orm drain conveyance lines may need to be up-sized as necessary to accommodate existing and future developed property storm water runoff from the applicable tax lots {i.e. "Area of Benefit'} located to the north and south of the proposed development. if the storm drain lines are needed to be up-sized from the size necessary to accommodate the proposed development and the storm water flows from the existing development of the tax lots {i.e. "Area of Benefit"} north and south of the proposed 13r•crcrh<tcalr C;ru•rler~s 1'I tf) 7erztrrtire !'tarn Rcvrex• 1'us;c' <l development, to provide additional capacity to accommodate the projected future developed flows of the Area of C3enefit tax lots, then the PWD would propose to compensate the Developer for the upsizing above a minimum pipe size of 24-inch..diameter as per the methodology approved by the City Council. 3. Developer`s engineer shall provide a site drainage plan with the facilities being designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a 10 year storm event. The SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 1 f}-year storm event without surcharging, or must be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing public storm drainage facilities. Any private storm drain system exceeding 3-inches in diameter shall be designed to directly connect to the public storm drain system {at a manhole or curb inlet only}, and shall not be designed to discharge to the street surfaces. 4. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain either to an on-site private storm drain system ar discharge through a City approved "pop-up drain" located in the landscape area behind the City's sidewalk. ~. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the Gity PWD's rainfalllintensity curve, and City approved run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in the engineering calculations. 6. Storm drain pipe materials shall be PVG, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints meeting the requirements of ASTM D3212, F477, and G-443M, as applicable. Provide concrete {in areas within the rights-of-way} arsond-cement slurry {in areas outside the rights-af-way} encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. 7. If inlets/catch basins are to exceed 4.5 feet in depth from the lip of the inlet to the bottom of the catch basin, then the inlets and catch basins shall be designed to afford suitable "man" entry far maintenance/cleaning purposes. 8. Developer's engineer shall provide hydrology and hydraulic calculations and flow line plots far private and public storm drains. Plot HGL an profile or provide a separate profile drawing that indicates the NGh on the profile. Pipes should maintain cleansing velocity {minimum 2.g feet per second} and have adequate capacities without surcharging during the design storm. 9. The Developer may wish to incorporate the use of a perforated SD system. if sa, then the perforated storm drain system shall be designed to have adequate capacities to: ^ Convey the collected groundwater and storm water with the minimum cleaning velocities and without surcharging the collection and conveyance piping; and ^ Minimize silts, sands, gravels, and fines migration from the native sails into the SD system. The platted HGIv shall include both the groundwater infiltration, and the storm water run-off and run-an inflows into the SD system. 10. Maintain a minimum 0.2-fact drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes and curb inlets, unless flaw-through velocities during the design storm event exceed 3.0 feet per second Brookclale Gartierrs PUC? 7`entative Plan Review PWI) Stafj"Repor•t Page 1 Q {fps}. If flow velocities exceed 3.0 fps and the inlet pipe is in relatively direct {i.e. 180 ~ 5 degree} horizontal alignment with the outle# pipe, then as a minimum, the pipe slope shall be maintained through the base of the manhole or curb inlet. If flow velocities exceed 3,0 fps, and #here is other #han relatively direc# horizontal alignment between the inlet and outlet pipes, then a minimum of a 0.1-foot drop between inlet and outlet pipe inverts in manholes or curb inlet must be maintained. A bo#fom channel shall be formed in the manhole or curb inlet base to mitigate transitional Tosses and enhance flow #hrough the manhole or curb inlet. 11. Sheet flow surface drainage from the property auto the public rightswof-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. Sheet flow surface drainage towards the Hamrick Road right-of-way is unacceptable. Sanitary Sewer All ranitary sewer collection and conveyance system {SS System} design, consfruc#ion and testing shall conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 1990 APWA Standards, {~regon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {BCVSA}, and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. 2. The construction plans and the as-buil# drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construe#ion of sewer laterals. 3. The City upon comply#ion of ini#ial cons#ruction plan review and preliminary approval, will forward the plans to BGVSA for completion of the review process. Upon completion of the review by BCVSA, comple#ion of final revisions to the plans by the Developer's engineer, and following the final approval and signature on the cons#ruc#ion plans by BCVSA, the Public Works Director will approve the plans in final form. 4. All tes#ing and video inspection of lines and manholes shall be done in accordance with BCVSA requirements, at Developer's expense. The Developer shalC provide BCVSA and the City with test reports, N reports and certification of the sewer system construction prior to final acceptance. Water System -- Existing 1 &inch-diameter water line installed in Hamrick Road and 12-inch-diame#er Meadowbrook Drive. The water sys#em shall be designed #o provide the required fire flow demand capacities for the proposed development, which meet Fire District 3 requirements, with fire hydrant placement as approved by the City PWD and Fire District 3. Maximum spacing of fire hydrants shall be 300 feet, unless otherwise approved•by Fire District No. 3 and City PWD. The water system shall be of reinforced flow {"looped"} design, with valved connections {taps} to the existing 12-inch- diameterwaterlines in Meadowbrook Drive and the 16-inch-diameter line in Hamrick Road. Water service lateral connection stationing and size shall be provided on construction plans and as-built drawings. 2. Developer shall comply with Gregon Health Division {C)HD} and City requirements for backflow prevention. 3. Water service meter boxes shall be City PWD specified "Christy" brand meter boxes, #hat Brookdate Gardens PtID Tentative Plan Revie}v PWD Staf}"Report Page 11 accommodate the Senses touch-read equipment. City PWD will perform al! "hat" connections to active water lines {including service lateral taps}, unless otherwise approved by the Public Works Director. Site work, Grading, and Utility Plans Grading plans should have originallexisting grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 2. AI[ structures shall have roof drains, area drains, andlor crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. 3. Provide Gity with a utility plan approved by each utility company which reflects all utility line locations, crossings, transformer locations, valves, etc. 4. Utility locations must be accurately included on the as-built drawings, or as a separate set of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. 5. All fill placed in development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and current adopted UBC standards, except for the upper 1.5-foot of fill placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie buildings, structures, or vehicular access ways or parking areas. PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 4, 2000 TO: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: Tom I-Iumphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Site Plan Review of37 2W 1 OAA, Tax Lot 4600 and 37 2 W 11 BB, Tax Lots ~ 100 and 7400- demolition, renovation and construction of new structures in the Grange CO-C}P complex. Owned Grange Cpl-t~P Applicant: 89 Alder Street Central Point, C7regon 97502 Pier AescriptianJ 372~IOAA, Tax Lot 4600 372W1188, Tax Lots 7100,7400.. 2.32 acres total Zoning: C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial District Sucnmary The applicant has submitted a Site Plan for review that would allow the Grange CO-(~P to add new warehouse and retail building space and to demolish older buildings in the process. Improvements would take place on the north and south sides of Ash Street. A livable Law CPMC 17.46.010 et seq. - C-5, Tourist and Office-Professional District CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. -Off Street Farking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval I3iscassion During the cast few years, the Grange CO-OP has been in the process ofupdating and renovating it's facilities in Central Point. There have been numerous facade improvements, a new garden center and the creation of some additional parking spaces in an attempt to meet the growing demand for customer products and services. Most ofthe improvements up until now, were processed at the stafflevel since the code allows an "in house" review unless maj or modifications or other special circumstances are present. The Grange would now like to conduct a maj or renovation proj ect that encompasses the warehouse area { referred to as Phase I}behind tlae Front Street 7-l l store and the retail area {referred to as Phase II }between Alder and Ash Streets. Access to the warehouse area will be from Ash Street with vehicles exiting onto Cedar Street. Access to the retail area will be limited to three driveways from Alder, Asia and Front Streets. ~~~ ~._....~ ~ tom.--; l'hasc 1 wo~€ld acid ~~ seco€Id 2,£}67 sc{uare foot storage bt€ilding can floe east porno€t o#`t#Ze lot (rc:fcr to Attach€~1ent A}. A ne~v 4,100 square footcanopy would connectthc; two storage buildings a€~d provide protection from tl~e c:len~ents forc€.€stomers. Phase 11 re€~~oves a majority oftlze existing retail store a€~d replaces it with a 17,00 square foot building. De€Z~olition and constructio€z will occur incrementally in order to t~linimize dis~-~Iption to Gusto€~ners. The western €~~ost portion ofthe retail area (dashed line on site plan} will remain a€ltil the shaded area is finished. It will then be demolished and the space used for pa€'king. Abol€t 3,000 square feet ofthe new building will be committed to warehouse. The off street parking requirements for this project have been satisfied with 102 spaces proposed. CPMC Chapter 17.4 requires a total of97 spaces for this project. The inte~'sections of First, Alder and Ash Streets have a vision clearance area of25 feet. The Alder, Ash and Front Street intersections require a 55 foot vision clearance area. The site plan and proposed buildings support these clearances. While a landscaping plan has been submitted to the City, tl~e portion adjacent to Front Street may be modif led to allow a landscape strip between the curb and a meande~•ing sidewalk. The Public Works report will support this design and the applicants are aware of this recommendation. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.72.040; A. Landscaping and fencing and the const~'uction ofwalls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme ofthe neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation ofnew ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The applicants have submitted a landscaping plan for consideration by the Commission. B. Design, number and location of ingress and egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ Phase I is accessed from curb cuts on Cedar and Ash Streets. Phase II has curb cuts along Front, First, Alder and Asll Streets. C. To provide off-street parking and loading facilities and pedest€-ian and vehicle flow facilities in such a manner as is compatible with the use fo€' which the site is proposed to be used and capable of use, and in such a manner as to improve and avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; ^ The total number of retluired off-street parking spaces for both phases is 97. The applicant proposes Z02. `-' U ~ L' .~.,...,.....~rw.w..~..a..,~xw.'~ .4 -~._,,,~~_" r...«».w,..»«...,. r ~'.ra:~r:lw-`~.Y++.anlrr,lrararr _"', ~ ~, ~ f / OU7'S3es~ ,!~ 'fir ~ NG :~ ~t,SP ~'~ RE tt; ~ ~ ~ ~ f / J ~ , ~ , / ~.~ I r.:..~.....jxIYK M4tFp ~--'f CjwCMjTj 44jwAtxl wM r"'~-4xnTtW rxvula.llt+wul .u KOn~ 1 t ! i ~ i' t ,,. .,. nlx,,, ~w ,~~wwl.. w.x~.,.w w .~.,. _ ~ ~,,,•-- ;;,»,a x.:~ raj ~ +.a..~u.ax."`hf ,,,,,,,, w.., '- S"YT {lax r~` ""'..w ~.-r.ri, t.LrWiCATj ti AN'RNC MgrtjL xe r ~»~i~~ ^~'~ ~~w~yu..M~w a.u vrai wrwsYxa~~Yxw.r :•.. tN.r wOtwfLx x1t+161x ifG ^ t'v'C x xsar.w.~w.a MUr W+vwM`ra.c'+t ns •~.r."s arww~..wi tw~M1~ia~ +Ml.ars M1+r+W>u~4w .4+}r (µrC, AlrPf 1r i wxs rn N...-..aMw..y nrex~ .~"x ~x+.+~nx~iw Yrr`+W ~y ' +ww+vww y t^~`^~v~ 4~~ •. r.........x~r++...x.~..,.,x +.,.<w.. «.waw.wrw:',r„~-nw"*,.~,`e..';":...:n .. r:, ;' 7 ~~ "^*..Y..`µ «<.-«w..."'.+ w.':""""'*...,,: ^.tx~.~.."~«~.""a" ~"~..~ri r~...h'......ww.r.~ w»~»-..,...wW~ ! ~'°^~+.~Wawf rµwy~~u 'w4iw'4' ~Yr~+~usuM1aYa+~4 rw ~m ~M~u~,~y~~x ~_~~M~~~q f~~ '~ _ • M <WLLM r+o.eu ~c urr ua .'W U.~~ ~wu~w rMrr ~w+nw.rr~r'i'i. Caj~ ~.r~ Mwf ~^~'+G ruaW .MMwn~ wt.~M ~w..~..+ww.x.ww~«w:«r:.,...,.,x,,,,j x.~wex.rix-~....w,~"";,,.."..".""xu.~. ..wn,wy w:.wrl.r.,r,,,m . 3 ~:~a,~,w~~...~~,,,,«n`w"„t,~,,,,...a.....R"""-.w:""...,:.~",.,,«. ~„M-x..~.+a «,.»: f,.r~.+r."".. r.~...,'~.«"~"^`"".c"w. w`.".w';"'wm~.c, o.'~w.~.,w~».rr `"^"r'tj'r•.jwY~rt.rwx~ Miu4+taM+WUM~W.aMNwnalu~NSriW xY.ix,wwW~yyy,~W.~hYtWn.~fVh ~t ~tinw~Ww~LL F+M,~FM M~wwM ~I~ .nx~yww~xYjx~yr+r+a Ytf.l w+rMlfGMrrMixuwry xwwy wxwN~ rc4G+r.5 iWwWM MLL~str+W' # . .., r+rxu. waaT a.....rw.«~x,.wr 'u..a'a`".~.~....n`..~';.+•ww.....""w+ro.~•s'w."'wl.~.uw+..«.."`..u..r.~..w.":.w.'. ~', _ a.. j SITS ..::'ti~~.oe mtra ~ - - ., - ~r~~sea.~~~.rm,rr~uc~r~on~~z.a, +uarwtj Kp q Kwottp +-~ a,.,... _...~ .w, t+a`xeiw ~laij rwi wi Lrp,nry /"J Ajj i4u~if tai +~Y6+~rP ~~t zK~.~ca.tc y{x~y~KAxi3trl Tfr ~~.rrfjxyM ~iFxy'~~~'S ~yr~aj~rrrn.,a v faA a+jr wwW r+ j"'jc+j . vrwJw +ut~o[ ' ti~s~ .Sr.'s ~ ",t.v'«r, i _---..__.__y^------- " (arr'.xss'r.~urr i hL~ ~+'.osclrrrxc ~ V Rj1M1i~i i jt //(,I~~3 1 a ~~~r.~ ~.r. City of Central Point Tam Humphrey, .AICP Punning Director Ken Gerschier Community Planner Matt Samitore Planning Technician Notice of ~1~Ieet~ng 1]ate of Notice: March 15, 200 Meeting T.}ate: Time: Place: April ~, 2000 7:00 p.m. (Approximate} Central Point City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Paint, Oregon NATC;~RF, OF MEETING t~tp o r ce~itrai l~~~Zt ~.~~.~~~'~' eta. rt Planning l~epxr~m~t Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Cornrnission will review a site plan that would allow for the demolition, renovation and construction of several buildings belonging to the Grange CO-OP. The buildings are located in a C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial Zoning IJistrict on Jackson County Assessrrfent Plat 372W10AA, Tax Lat 4600 and Plat 37 2W 11BB, Tax Lots 7100 and 7400. The Central Point Planning Commission will review the site plan application to determine that all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can. be met. CRTI`ER~IA FOR DECISION The requirements for site plan review are set forth in Chapter 3 7 of the Central Point Municipal Cade, relating to General Regulations, Off street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC COMMENTS Any person interested in commenting on the above-mentioned land use decision may submit written comments up until the close of the meeting scheduled far Tuesday, April 4, 2000. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Paint City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, OR 97502, 155 South Second Street !Central Point, OR 97502 ! 541 664-3321 !Fax: 541 664-6384 4 I 7~ t / f F' 3. Issues which may provide the basis far an appeal on the matters shah be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, C?regon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5, For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541} 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY tJF PROCEDURE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application. Any testimony or written comments rr~ust be related to the criteria set Earth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve ar deny the variance. City regulations provide that the Central Paint City Council be informed about all Planning Commission decisions. ,C l` ~_ ~. l ~' ~ ~_. tl ~/ t,r { ~~ 4 £ ~: ~~~ ~ ~.. ~~ V' _ cS5 -~ ''~ ~ ~~ s 5~ ~ ~~^ .~ t-Subject Propertses t -St { t$~ ''~ :--_ i ~__ ~.~:-~- I -~ i ~ r . ..~. 155 South Second Street • Central Point, 4R 975£)2 r! 541 664-3321 i Fax: 541 664-6384 ~~~ 83/24/2006 09:05 8264566 JcFD3 ~ t]FC PALS ~2 ~~ ~~. ~ ~~.c~cs~~ co~c~~ 8333 A~A7E EZSJAD, WHO CT7Y, OREGON 97'5033-1t}7S Csa~z} 8xs-Txao rP,3c (sox} sus-x-566 March 24, 20QQ Ken Gerschler City of Central Point FtE: Grange CU-t~P (25.5 South Front} The wilding Department will request a set t3f blue prints from the applicant for submittal to Fire District #3 for review The p1an~ sbal[ include a plot plan showing placemen# of buildings, main access roads and driveways. Fire District #3 will apply Uniform Fire Code requirements which may also include on-site water storage andfor hydrants fc~r fire protection, and road access prior tb c©nstructi©n. If you Dave any questlQrts please contact me, G~~ ~~ hleil Shaw Deputy Fire Marshal ~ ~~~ ATTACHMENT C REC4MMENUED PLANN1lNG DEPARTMENT CONDITIC}NS +G1F APPRC}VAL The approval of the Site Plan shad expire in one year on April 4, 2fl01 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension has been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 60 days of Planning Commission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 3. The applicant/property owner shall submit final traffic eirculationlstriping, landscaping, lighting and sign plans as applicable to the Planning, Public Works and Building Departments for approval prior to obtaining any building permits. •~ ~~~ CITY OF CENTRAL POINT ©B'PARTMEtVT OF PUBLIC W©RKS STAFF RE=PORT for Grange Ca-Op Facilities Phase I and ll PW#99076 Date: March 31, 2000 Applicant/ Grange Co-Op, 89 Alder Street, Central Paint, Oregon 97502, 664-1261, Owner; Contact: Jay Powell Agent: Batter Construction, Project: Retail and Warehouse Facilities Redevelopment; Twa Phases. Location: Phase l; Near Southwest Corner of intersection of First and Ash Streets Phase 11. City black Between Front, Alder, First, and Ash Streets Legal: Phase I: T37S, R2W, Section 11 BB, Tax Lots 7100 and 7400 Phase ll: T37S, R2W, Section 10AA, Tax Lat 4600 Zoning: C-5, Thoroughfare Commercial District Area: Phase l: 0.70 Acres, Phase 11: 1.62 Acres. Plans: 1 "Proposed New Construction far Grange Ca-Op" consisting of 3 sheets illustrating proposed improvements for Phases t and ll; prepared by BatzerlBeck dated February 14, 2000; and "Landscape and Irrigation Plan" consisting of 1 sheet illustrating proposed landscape improvements; prepared by Batter/Beck, dated March 6, 2000. Report By: Lee N. Brennan, Public Works Director Purpose Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant (hereinafter referred to as "Developer"} regarding City Public Works Department (PWD} standards, requirements, and conditions to be included in the design and development of the proposed commerciallprafessional office facility. Gather information from the DevelaperlEngineerregording the proposed development, Special Requirements 1. Existing Infrastructure: The Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure {i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,} will not interfere with ar provide far the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows andlor demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure, or will be improved by and of the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additiona! flaws andlor demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by (as applicable}, the regulatory agency, utility owner, andlor property owner involved. 2. Front Street Improvements: Right-of-WaylEasement Dedica#ion: The right of way width from the centerline of Front Street to the subject property is 60 feet. Currently the width of right-of-way located behind the curb of Front Street is approximately 6 feet. To facilitate implementation of a meandering sidewalk and landscaping, in accordance with the street section crass-section for a major arterial road width, an additional 8-foot of right-way dedication will be needed to facilitate implementation of these types of improvements. In lieu of right-af-way dedication, the Developer may choose at his Cirurrs,>c~ C'c~-t)Ir. I'frrr.cc° 1 arrrt 1! 1}~~ ~~ 1fQ/~ It'C'fX71'( IICf frN 7 option to dedicate to the City a perpetual easement for pedestrian ingress and easement fhat is approximately 8-feet wide and is along the Development's frontage with f=ront Street. This additional easement dedication and the development of the noted improvements can be afforded based on the proposed plan if the distance between parking space lanes is reduced from the 26 feet shown to 2~1 feet. This reduction has been discussed with and approved by the Planning Director. Improvements: As discussed with the Developer, the City is making an effort to place landscape buffers with meandering sidewalks where possible next to collector and arterial streets. As being developed by the City PWD, this involves placing a six foot meandering sidewalk within a 'l4-foot wide strip located behind the curb, with the meandering sidewalk being placed no closer than 3 feet to the back of the curb or to the back of the right-of- wayleasement. Grass {as a minimum} and trees are placed in the landscape strip, with the trees being placed on both sides of the sidewalk {at 20-foot centers} in the wider areas of the meander. It is recommended that this development be conditioned to include installation of the landscape buffer and meandering sidewalk along the Development's frontage with Front Street. Since the improvements in this area are within the State's right-of-way, the Development will be responsible for the maintenance of the sidewalk and landscape improvements. ADA ramps, complying with (~DC7T and City standards will need to be installed at the intersection of Front Street with Alder and Ash Streets. The driveway apron shall be reconstructed to comply with current City1C}DDT standards. All other unused driveway aprons shall be removed. 3. improvements to Alder, First, and Ash Streets: Te Developer shall be responsible for the installation of ~-foot sidewalks, ADA ramps, and street lights {at 2f}0-foot maximum spacing} along the subject property's frontage with Alder, First, and Ash Streets. The Developer shall also remove and replace {with suitable curb and gutter} all existing driveway aprons that will not be used, or to facilitate construction of driveway aprons that meet current City standards, as applicable. 4. t)rivewa Aron at tVorthwest Corner of Ash and First Streets: The existing driveway apron shall be removed and replaced with a driveway apron with a maximum 8-foot throat meeting current City PWD standards, wiith the southern edge of the throat being placed a minimum of 17 feet from the southern property line extension along Ash Street. This driveway apron access will be only for forklift access only to the roll-up door on the southeast corner of the Phase II building; no vehicular {i.e truck, automobile, motorcycle, etc.} access will be allowed through this driveway apron, due to its close proximity to the intersection. ~. Site DralnagelSform Drain Plan: It is recommended that the developer design and implement a site drainage/storm drain plan that corrects and enhances existing site drainage for the entire areas noted on the site plan. This will require site drainage improvements to all the tax lots involved. The current sheet flow surface drainage from the properties onto the public rights-of- way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The on-going surface drainage from the new "flutside Display" area creates a nuisance and hazard. The storm drainage infrastructure on the tax lots would be privately operated and maintained. A suitable system will need to be designed for a minimum 10-year storm event. The discharge point and potential retention of storm water run-off shall be coordinated with aspects of the proposed development to provide an aesthetically pleasing, efficient, and low maintenance facility. The storm water retention facilities shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition, and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these facilities. The developer shall also secure written permission to connect/discharge into adjoining CitylflDt~T storm water Grange Co-O~, f'lurse t prrd II Ptt'D Staf~'Ref~ort Afarch 317, 217t11J Page 3 conveyance facilities. Catch basins, garb inlets, orifice boxes and area drains shall be designed for sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention. The PWD will require a copy of the engineers hydrology and hydrae€€c computations. It is further recommended that these drainage improvements be completed for each Phase prior to final inspection by the building Department for occupancy of the improved areas. It is also recommended that the necessary improvements to mitigate the unacceptable surface drainage from the outdoor display area and the parking areas that border Airier and First Streets, shall be constructed and in operation prior to occupancy of the improvements associated with Phase ll or within 6-months of Plann€ng Commission approval of this tentative plan; whichever occurs first. Roof drains shall not discharge across the pub€€c rights-of-way. 6. Llrivewa s Access Roads and Parkin Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road, parking, and driveway section designs to handle the expected loads {including fire equipment} to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Need to provide section far review. The driveways, access roads, and truck parking and turning areas on the proposed development must be designed and positioned in a manner that will accommodate the turning movements and access of the anticipated trucks {i.e WB~67 truck, single unit trucks, etc.}, Rogue Disposal and Fire District No. 3, without crossing into an opposing lane or additional travel lane of traffic and with complete access in and around the proposed improvements. Ail driveways, access roads, and parking areas should either have asphalt or cement concrete surfaces. 7. Unlit Easements; A 1~-foot wide public utility easement {PUI=) will be required along the subject property's frontages with Front street {located behind the additional 8 feet of right-of- way or easement dedicated}, and as feasible along Alder, First and Ash Streets. 8. Existing Sign an Front Street The existing store sign on Front Street {and any other signs} shall be modified to bring the s€gn{s} into conformance with the City's sign ordinance. 9. Refuse and Rec cle Containers and Other E ui ment and Materials PlacementlStora e within City Right-af WaY Past practice by the Developer on the subject properties has been to place refuse and recycle containers with'sn the City's rights-of-way. C7ther materia€s and equipment are also often times placed within the rights-of--way. It is the City PWD recommendation that the Developer shall not be allowed to place these items within the City's rights-of-way, and that suitable facilities are included w€th the proposed development for their placement, storage, and use. 10. Cit Water Service RevisianlU rode and Backflaw Prevention Assembl lnstallafion: The Developer shall work with the City PWD on revising/upgrading the site's water service connections to comply with current City ordinances regarding water service and backflow prevention assembly installation. Approved backflow prevention assembly installation {at the Developer's expense} shall be required direct€y behind all the City water service meters that service the proposed developments. Any new connections to the City's water system to facilitate the proposed development shal€ be performed by the City at the Developer's expense. '11. UtilifY Relocation: Any utilities located in the former alley or in easements across fax lot 4600, and potentially on tax lots 7'l00 and 7400, which will underlie or be within 5 feet of the Grange Co-Qp, Pizase I and II PWL7 Staff Report Mareh 3~1, 2t1Q4 Page ~ proposed footprints or roof-lines of the building improvements, will be relocated at the Developer's expense. City PWD will do all removal, abandonments, ar other associated work and all "hots connections to active water Imes, including water service lateral connections, at Developer's expense. Suitable easement dedications meeting current City standards for.any relocated utility will need to be provided, as applicable. General 1. Development Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD far review and appraval, engineered plans and specifications for all improvements prapased far construction ar modifications within the City or public rights-of-way and easements, or far connections to City infrastructure. Plans shall Shaw all existing utilities and City facilities, existing contours, property lines, benchmarks and other physical site information needed for review, All plans submitted for PWD review shall be presented in a common engineering scale sized to fit on 24-inch by 3~-inch, D size drawing sheets. PWD requires 3 sets of plans for review purposes. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets {including sidewalks, curbs and gutters, ADA ramps, driveway aprons, and landscape buffers}; alleys; storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance systems; water distribution system {up to the service meter and including fire protection}; street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator ar his designee prior #o the appraval of the construction plans far the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shat[ be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for appraval prior to installation. 2. AA~rovals: Fire District No. 3 {fire hydrant placement, fre sprinkler vault placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access}, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Autharify {BGVSA, far sanitary sewers}, and City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility {cammerciallindustrial wastewater discharge permit} written appraval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final construction plan review and appraval by Gity PWD. 3. As-Guilts: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" farm (produced on Myla~') and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD~, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-linefl changes to final appraved construction plans which identify the locations and ar elevations {as appropriate} of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spat elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; water and sewer lateral; modifications to street section; manhole and curb inlet; street light locations; other below grade utility lines; etc. Provide a "red-line hard copy {on Mylar~}, or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoGAD~ compatible drawing electronic file to the City at completion of construction and prior to acceptance of public Grange Ca-4p, Phase I and II PWL) Staff Report Mareh 34, 2C3C10 Page S infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. Elevations: All elevations used on the construction plans, on temporary benchmarks, and on the permanent benchmark shall be tied into an established City approved benchmark. and be so noted on fhe plans. At least one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of which shall be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer's surveyor. 5. Existing Infrastructure: As applicable, field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations ti.e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.}, to which the proposed development will connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submi#al for final approval. The accurate locations of any existing underground and above ground public infrastructure, and the location of the associated easements with these facilities, shall be accurately portrayed {both horizontally and vertically} on the construction plans. 6. Fil! Placement: All fill placed in the development shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD and Building Department standards, except for the upper '1.5-feet of fill placed outside of public rights-of--way and that does not underlie building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. 7. Utilit~„Plans: We did not receive any utility plans for the proposed development. The utility plans shall be drawn to scale with accurate horizontal and vertical depiction of utility lines and appurtenances {transformers, valves, etc.). As built drawings shall reflect al[ utility locations; located both above and below ground. 8. Area Lighting Plan: Provide and implement an adequate area lighting plan for parking and public access areas, including the driveway entrances. Plans should include the mast height, luminosity and effective light spread at ground level. lighting shall be designed so as not to interfere with vehicle traft'ac on city streets, or that will direct light to neighboring properties. 9, Fire Hydranfs and Fire Service: Provide (ovations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. Fire Hydrants need to be connected to 8-inch-diameter and larger lines. Fire hydrants need to be connected to &inch-diameter and larger lines, with the supply lines being "looped" as feasible. If applicable, steamer ports at hydrants located near the building shall lave the buildings, Fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. Fire service vaults and backflow prevention assemblies shall be as required by the City PWD and Fire District No. 3 in accordance with the standards and details of the Medford Water Commission. 1(3. Water System Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with C7regon Health Division {CJHD} and City requirements for cross connection control. Building service will likely require a backflow prevention assembly to be installed directly behind the City's meter. 11. Water System: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location of al[ water mains, hydrants, valves, service connection, meter, service laterals, and other appurtenance details in accordance with City PWD Standards and as required by the City PWD. Grange G'o-©p, Phase I and II PF~'L? Staf,~'Repart March 30, 2004 Page 6 12. Sanitary Sewer JndusfriaJ Discharge Permit: If applicable, obtain an updated industrial discharge permit from City of Medford Regional Water Reclamation Facility (Medford RWRF}. Obtain Medford RWRI*'s written approval. Copy of the application farm can be obtained from City FWD. '13. Roof/Area Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, andlor crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. Roof drains shall not be directly connected to the public storm drain system. 14. Grading Plans: Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations, 15. Storm Drain System Design: The Developer's engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrology and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the site storm drain system. The engineer shall use the rainfalllintensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrology calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters. Developer's engineer shall provide a site drainage plan designed, at a minimum, to accommodate a ~ 0 year storm event. The 5D system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storm event without surcharging the City's existing storm drainage collection and conveyance system, or must be provided with adequate storage to prevent surcharging; and be designed to not impact existing public or private storm drainage facilities. Catch basins and area drains shall be designed for on-site sediment and petroleum hydrocarbon retention. The private storm drain system shall be designed to directly connect to the public storm drain system, and shall not be designed #o discharge to the street surfaces. Surface drainage from any fuel storage and dispensing facilities shall not be directly connected to the storm drainage system without prior approval by the DEQ and City PWD. Public storm drain pipe ma#erials shall be PVC, HDPE, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints, meeting current City PWD standards. Provide concrete or sand_cement slurry encasement where required in areas of minimum cover. Roof drains and underdrains shall not be directly connected to public storm drain lines, and shall drain to the on-site private storm drain system. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's rainfalltintensity curve, and City approved run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients, etc., that are used in the engineering calculations. 16. Traffic Circuiafion Plan: The developer shall prepare and submit for City PWD approval a suitable site traffic circulation plan for the proposed development. The traffic circulation plan shall illustrate that all driveways and connections to streets shall accommodate the turning and access movements of all expected truck, bus, emergency vehicle (i.e fire truck} and all other applicable vehicles including but not limited to a WB-67 truck (long-haul delivery truck}; a motor Grange Co-C?p, Phase C and It PW,t) Sta,JJ"Report March 3tJ, 2t?OQ Page 7 home in combination with a boat trailer; a single unit truck; and fire-fighting equipment. All vehicular movements shall be designed to avoid infringing into opposing or adjoining travel lanes when the traffic movements are made by the studied vehicle. '17. Clear Vision AreaslTriangles. All driveway approaches of the proposed Development connecting to public roads shall maintain the required sight vision triangles as measured from the edge of the right-of-way to the center of t!-~e driveway. This rettuirement may be adjusted by the City PWD, depending on final orientation and lane layout of the adjoining roads, in accordance with AASNTO clear sight-vision requirements. Adequate clear vison area/triangles shall also be maintained at all internal driveway intersections. 18. Aboveground Ufilifies: As applicable, coordinate efforts with Pacific Power, US West, and Falcon {TCl} Cable, to convert any overhead electrical power, telephone, or cable facilities within the proposed development to underground facilities, prior #a the acceptance by the City PWD of the public improvements associated with the proposed development. All agreements and costs associated with the conversion of these facilities from overhead to underground facilities, shall be by and between the utill#y owners and the Developer. 19. Easemenfs: Easements for City infrastructure {i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain {if applicable]} should be a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines shall be dedicated to the City and not just a P.U.E. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five {5} feet from the edge of the easement. if two or more City owned utilities are located within an easement, then a minimum of 20-foot width should be required. Easement dedications in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which should clearly indicate that easements must be maintained with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public Infrastructure facilities, as determined by the City PWD. 20. Sanifary Sewer. All sanitary sewer collection and conveyance system {SS System} design, construction and testing steal[ conform to the standards and guidelines of the Oregon DEQ, 9990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {BGVSA}, and the City PWD Standards, where applicable. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals.