Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - August 1, 2000PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMOI2ANI)UM I-ILIIRING D1-~,TE: ~a~~g~~st 1, 2f}f~(~ T{~-: Central Point Planning Commission FROM: I~en Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Site Plan Review of 37 2W ~ 1 C, Tax Lot 3404 -Construction of a pole barn at the C}.D.C}.T. facilities on ~Iamrick Road. Owner/ Oregon Department of Transportation A~plic~r,nt: 3544 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, Oregon 9'74'70 Agent: Raymond F. Cooper C}regon Department of Transpoz~tation 3500 NW Stewa;rt Parkway Roseburg, f~regon 97470 Pro er Description! 372~]tJ41 C, Tax Lot 3400 _ 7.70 acres Zonin~i M-2, Industrial-General District Discussion This item was continued from last month's Planning Commission hearing at the request of the applicant (Qregon Department of Transportation} so that portions of the Public Works Staff report could be discussed. Primarily at issue were improvements to Hamrick Road and Right of Way dedication, The applicants have consented to making improvements along I-Iamrick Road when the City determines it to be appropriate. They have requested that the Public Works Department recommendation to dedicate 25 feet of right of way for a new road be dropped because there is no nexus between the proposed pole barn and the improvement. Parking and landscaping requirements were also discussed. The overall number of parking spaces can be reduced from the recommended 52 spaces to 33 spaces based upon an accurate allocation of space and use activities provided by the applicant. The existing landscaping will be better maintained and new landscaping will be introduced when Hamrick Road improvements are made. Staff will review other issues during the meeting. Attachments: 1~.. E~.D.O.T. Request for Continued Public Hearing bated July 11, 2000. B. City Staff Repoz~ Dated .luly 11, 2400. ,~ .... ~„ ~~~.--11-~ooa ~~ 05 : o ~ i>rl ono ~o~UE v~~.~~~ ~~~~ l~ ~x loo, ~~ ~ -~~~ ~~~~ City of Ce~atrsl Feint Flannin~ department ,3uly 11, 200C} Central Point Planning Department Tom Humphrey, Planning Director ~ 55 S. 2nd Street Central Point, CSR 97502 ~, ~ ~~~ ~rz~nx~z~n~~~~ ~ TRt1NS I'CYT;'~`11.'1`I C RE: bite plan review for flDflT property described as 37-2W-01 C, Tax lot 34Qfl pear Tom: This proposal far the construction of a po[e barn at the maintenance facilities at 414'1 Hamrick Read, is scheduled to be heard by the Cents[ Point Planning Commission. on July 1 ~ , 2000. We have just recently received a copy o~ the staff recommendations regarding the proposal and have questions that we would like to discuss with City staff. 1=or this reason we are requesting that this tearing be continued for one month, to give us this opportunity. We appreciate your cooperation with our request. Sincerely, _.-~-. Shirley l~oberts, Planner Cc: Terry Harbour, Planning Unit Manager Monte Grove, Area Manager Jahn Vial, district Manager [CentPtl.sr~ U ~ ~ i ^,r~ ~~rt~:lt~l~~:l3x~~~ 1?!tc3s:c {3~~lj B~C~~:~ C~lty E}f f..,`~`11[tTaj P4$it ~~nrtin~ I3eFartm~t~ PLANNING DCPARTMEI'~T STAFF REPflR1' HEARING PLATE: July 1 1, 2000 T©: Central Point Planning Commission FRflM: Ken Gerschler, Community Plarzrzer SUBJECT: Site Plan Review of 37 2W O1 C, Tax Lot 3400 -Construction of a pole barn at the Q,D.fl.T. facilities on I-Iamrick Road. Owner/ C}regon Department of Transportation Applicant: 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, Qregon 9'7470 Agent= Raymond F. Cooper C7regon Department of Transportation 3500 NW Stewart Parkway Roseburg, C?regon 97470 ProAe_~ Descri tp ionl 372WO1C, Tax Lot 3400 -1.70 acres Zonizzg;. M-2, Industrial-General District Summary The applicant is requesting a Site Plan Review that would allow the construction of an enclosed pole barn at the C},D.D.T. maintenance yard located at 4141 Hamrick Road. Applicable Law CPMC 17.48.010 et seq. - M-2, Industrial-General Zoning District CPMC 17.Er4.010 et seq. - cuff Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq.- Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval Discussion Mr. Raymond Cooper, working on behalf of the Oregon Department ofTransportation, is requesting that the Pianrzing Commission review a Site Plan application that would allow the construction of a 420{} square foot building in the maintenance yard located on Hamrick Road. The 50 by 84 foot "pole barzz" type building is to be used for miscellaneous storage. This would be the fzfth building to be situated on the parcel. The setbacks for the M-2, Industrial-General Zoning District are 10 feet for the front yard, 10 feet for the side yards and 10 feet for the rear yard. Surrounding uses include Bear Creek Greenway to the West and Lininger `T'rue Mix { I.,rl'M} to the South. "Ill~e Reddaway truckizzg facility is located aerass I-Jamrick Raad to the East and sevez•al rural residences are located betweezz the subject property and East Pine Street to the North. Eventually, tl~e properties along East Pine Street will gain a commercial zoning designatiozr once the area is annexed into tl~e City. CPMC I7.64.O10 identifies the off street parking; requirements for various land use azld business activities within the City of Central Point. This particular site has three distinct activities (office, shop and storage} that each require a separate calculation of required off street parking spaces. fJffice facilities must provide "not less than one space per each three hundred square feet of gross floor area". The office area as shown. on the site plan (3300 sq. ft.} would need a minimum of 33 spaces. There are 3300 square feet of shag area that will need eleven spaces as tl~e code requires "not less than one space per each three hundred square feet of gross floor area. The storage facilities as proposed comprise a combined area of 7500 square feet requiring "not less than two spaces per each three employees an the two largest shifts, or one space per each one thousand square feet, whichever is greater°' which equates to 5 spaces. The total number of required spaces is 52 with the applicant providing 47 paved spaces. There is adequate area to create an additional S spaces on site. The applicant has submitted a landscaping plan that depicts the existing layout of shrubs and trees with no additional landscaping being proposed at this time. Staff recommends that the existing landscaping be updated as the area is severely overgrown by weeds. New trees should be planted along the Hamrick Raad frontage in the existing landscape area, similar in size and shape to those recently planted aerass the street at the Reddaway Freight facility. A portion of the subject lot is within the I00 year flaodplain with the area proposed for the new building located out of the area shown on the FEMA maps. The Central Paint Public Works Department may require the design and implementation of a plan for storm retention facilities an site. The Public Works Department may further require that improvements such as cuz•b, gutter and sidewalk be installed or deferred in an agreement with the City for installation at a later date. The proposed structure ar current workforce of 16 employees is not likely to increase traffic to the facility with access provided exclusively onto I"Iamrick Road via a single gated entry. The City will be negotiating with 410T to construct a new street west from Hamrick Road along common property lines. This is discussed in the Public Works staff report. Na new signage has been shown on the site plan but future signage will require a separate building permit though the Central Paint Building Department. Plumbing and electrical permits will also be needed if the proposed building connects to either service. Jackson County Fire District Number Three has been natifzcd ofthis site plan. review application and will likely respond with recommendations far consideration by the commission. The Bear Creek Malley Sanitazy Authority has commented Attachment E} that the property is served by a 6 inch sewer service line heated along the southerly property boundary. L y Findi ~s of Fact & Conclusions of Law In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans subzx~zitted, tlae City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section 17.~2.~40: A. Landscaping and fencing and the constrezction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the sarrze to not substantially interfere with the landscaping schez~e oftl~ze neighborhood, and in such. a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogezleous to existing neighborhood uses. The Commission znay require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new ones far purposes of screening adjoining propez-ty. ^ No additional landscaping is proposed at this time, however an upgrade to both irrigation and landscaping would improve the overall appearance. 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; ^ The current ingress and egress front. the facility will remain unchanged but the Central Point Public Works Department is recammending an alternate access via a new street. The Central Point Public Works Department or Jackson County Roads and Parks may require additional offstreet improvements. C. To provide off street parking and loading facilities and pedestrian and vehicle flow facilities in such a mariner as is compatible with the use for 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 code requires a total of 52 spaces for this project. The applicant will need to revise the site plan to include an additional S paved spaces to meet the off street parking requirement. D. Signs and other outdoor advertising structures to ensure that they do not conflict with or deter from traff c control signs or 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; ^ Any new signage that may be associated 'with this project will require a separate building permit. E. Accessibility and sufficiency of fire fighting facilities to such a standard as to provide for the reasonable safety oflife, limb and property, including, but not limited to, suitable gates, access roads and fire lanes so that all buildings on the premises are accessible to fire apparatus; ^ The project, if approved, would need to meet any requirements of Jackson County Fire District 3 which generally requests review during the building permit development ~~~ process. F. Compliance with all city ordinances and regulations; ^ The project when constructed, will be in compliance with the requirements of the Central Point Municipal Code subject to the recommended conditions of approval. 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. ^ This building is similar in appearance to others in the MW2 zoning district. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission talcs one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the 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, Attachments A. Site Plan, Building Elevations B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Public works Staff Report D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval E. Correspondence .. w 'M ~ V JJ V trl 'N ~ y^(-y', i'yjy"f(T ~ y^a" , yl{-y} (~~y]( `jy~t~ ~t ~~4~~T~~T~.NCE ~`~`AT~C) ~. ~ ~ .~.~ ~ C~~T~;~~ Pt~ZNT, OREG~ ~, ~~ ~ ~ ~75~2 ~1 4 ~~ ,~i~F"~ 'F't.Af'~ 1'r ~, r ~~ t4 ii €! ~ } S ~ ~•.~ s i 3 3 ~ i~ I ll i ~ t` i I I I ~ ,~ 1 ~~s..wr~.%--~_ i.. x k 3;~, $ y. ~j} ~ .W _~~ ~ ~~ ~t+«... qtr w.,_._..__ ~ ~~ _# ~~ ~~ ' ~ 3 E ~~ ~- t l~.o+.r t..-..,....-..,. e ~ '~ l W-,, ` 1 ~~~~ i > ~ ~ ~, x 1_ l_...._.1_ _a_._. ~?. w ~. ~ Y_..-z Ok{6r3 tist~cs ryv+' w *~~r+'k+N ~~''•'~-• " CL+Mat rhaT b~+K V''~ i~~~~._.V Fwc.~..msa +wwx wS.n' K4'4w h,cw~t vrF~ knn .c~Ctra ` sr7^tiru'EX ~ i ~r . ~' 4 .I ~v~ r s r 'r'""«.. « fs.rtu tGitFAYY L~wi: ..J"r-.r •-----+- r ,,..~}„/1 Yom" . Jn... ~, i ST©REAGE ~~ ` 3C}'x 6Q` ~1 ~' -~ { ~~ Q , ~~..~~ ~.,~ ~. + f ~ -~ ~~ ~. 1 N c i 3 e- EX1571~JG IRf21GATIC}N FI.AN74NG SPARKING male = ~~ ~NtY,V G+K ~„x r,_ r ... ~ x .++x . ~~ -, 4 3 . ~ ~ f'k __._-,. 4. „~' . 3~ C.71 ~ .5 i L ~ = F Lr _ _ ~~ ~,~ K i ~ ~~ X Y [ i ~i ~ _ k W s ~ k M` ~ ~,..i i q}} .'" ` r~ 3 j ) ~ j ~ ~,--._.- ..~ j j ~ X ~ t ~ t i i kx xnt +w~+r v.+r a...d Csr. ,~c s.+t~ .. ,.;~. My YrM A yr wr WA r 'j •ww«'serwcnrwr .+ trw'C rwrr ~ cwxc«. Ywc ....n. ~ 3 «~..- +n"..`.-zcr'r ~'a+~ w.."z.Ot fr+.+.E ~~ tom' ~ `"'~T.wtt.'iw L ~~ ......_.......~.. ~ sw W u4 t r~yx'+..r kz~r~..~. v,vti s.c.Ar wa .>, I~ ['~'+,YtiQ ~~J'Vi ~+1i}`» .S~RJ'h Ll1.•5f4' ... £ ,y^.+'s 1rY..v,, th.l r--z<-c cwm*t Y~+na,-...... 1 ~~ r~s 3~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~''"`~~ t~k ~ a;r~k~ , ~;~jx,i,'~ I~ ~E lj ,fir ~~3 ~ ~~;~~~~~ ~ ~~>~ ~'~'~`'~l ,~,~~ ~1111E~ iii ,~;~I~ ~44s~ ~~~',F~~i r ;~' ~ 3 ~~ ~~~ ~ I I;I ~ ~~ ' 1 t I ~~ ~ f~~ ~y ~ `r;~-~ ,~ is,~ ~ ~' Ei ~ ~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~j{. V ~7 7.~~?tii~€3"ff~~l~'s'~'~1~~13F.Fi~S,~~!I,, .~'~' .i ~ ~~'F:~~ ~'i 1 X4! 1 .N ~f~uYA y'19 YO~YIAF y t t r t j i ,~ ~, s.,Y rnr T~a +~ c Y -""-' .tF t` € C 4 r, ! j f ' ___x._' ~ ~J• u:5 F i r ~ a s ; ;' , 1 ( i ~f !~ R ~ _~ 3 f I ~ ~ I (€ ~~ ht ~(___~......Yt+~ xr ~ ~ ~~~ ~." ~r ---t :/` ~'Glv r~~ ~ ~~ - ~' .~ ~ ;~- . s:.F:,_a z ~~~~ -~!' f~ ~by4 ~~~r~~1 ~~ f ~_~(7~tf~'t~~ ~''~)r~t~ ,~'Z.~1`IIVZNCY 1~.~:Z'~Z~711~II;IV`Z' ~ Gflt~ City 4 f ~;entral I'ahtt ~~.I~~~ ~~`~` tt~ tt I.~I~T1SiTat~ DCI31It1I1CTt~ Meetizag Date Time: Place: NATURE C}F MPl T1NG Notice of I~~ee~:in~; D~tc of N©tzce: J~>_ne 21, 20Ua .Tiny I ~, 2(I(l4 7:~0 p,m, {Approxizaaate} Central Point City I-Iall I55 South Second Street Central Point, C}regon 'I`casn t ilsmlalll-cy, A1CI' 1}I1Fii1$11~ 1)lI'CCt{)I ICcIa Gcrscl1lc:I C;calllz~aunity I'Iartiztcs~ Matt Sazl~ittaz-c I'[altztizl~ "I'ccltlliciart Beginning at the above tizaae and place, floe Central Point Plazuaing Comznissioza wilt review aza application for a Site Plan that would allow floe cazastruction of an 420U square foot storage building in the C7regon Departrrzezat of Transportation Yards located near the izatersection of I-lanarzek Road and East Pine Street. This parcel is located in a M-2, Industrial-General Zoning District on .Iackson County Assessment Plat 372Wfl1C Tax Lot 340. The Central Point Planzzaing Commission will review the Site Plan application to determine that all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. CRITERIA FC~R DECISIC}hT The requirements for Site flan Review are set forth iza Chapter l7 of the Central Point Municipal Cade, relating to General Regulations, Uff street parking, Site flan, Landscaping and Cozastzuctioza flans. The proposed plaza is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Stazadards. PI.TI3LIC CQMMFN`S'S Any person interested in coznzncnti~ag on thccbove-mentioned land use decision naay subca~zit written conaznents up unti3 tl~e close of tlzc zaaccting scheduled far `I"ucsday, .Tiny 1 1, 2ClOC}. ~_ Writtel~ conazzaents naay be sent in ad~azzcc cif the Ir~ccting tc7 C:e~ztral I'~aint C.'ity T fall, I SS Sc~tztlz 5cct~nd Street, Centrtzl Iazaizat, C)lt 075()2. ___....._ ..............-----_._...._.._____~..__.__..______.-----.-..__....~_._._.____._. ____.___._.__~.___M__.__.___~._~-----____~_.___ 1 `;`~ `it,sFtla .`ic~~~csnc.i `~tzc~~t • t~cntz<zl ('<~itai, (}l~ `17'~{).? ~ t~~# 1 ~ t>t>=~_~3;i1 • I=ssx, t5~11 ~ {a(zrl_taifi•1 ~_ a. (ssttcs u-Iziclt tzz~tt' ~~rc~~'icic.: iltc Irt5i5 I~~r :zn <z}}Kcal c~€~ tlzt• €tz<zticr:~ :;It<tll he €<ti~~ci l~ri~~r to tltc ct}~iratioct of tltc cc7€zuncilt }7cc'ic~ci ttc~tctl a}7c~~ e. t1€ty tc'~tittx~€~}' ~t€1~l u-ri€tc€i ct~ttttz~e~zts ztl~oztt t}7c dccisic~ns ciescri}~eci a}}c~~;L ti~~ill €acccl tt~ },c rclatccl tc~ tlzc l~rc~}}os<zl ~ztx1 slzozt}d }>c :;t~ticcl clearly to the 1'latxtzitzf, Cotztczzissicxtl. ~. Conies of all evidcticc relied upazz E~y the applic<ztzt are av<zila}~Ic far public rcvie~w at City Fall, 155 Soztth Scco€zci Street, Cctatral 1'oizzt, C)rc;gotx. C:opics of the sazzze arc available at 15 cetxts l~cr pagc- 5. 1?or additional it~l`o€-tzxation, tl3e public t~1ay contact the 1'latzzxit~g Department at {541} 464- 3321 est. 291. SUMMARY 4F PI2~JC;I:I7URr ~,t the meeting, the Plazxzxitxg Cozxxzxzission will review tlxe applicatiozxs, technical staff reports, lxear testinxozxy fronx tlxe applicant, proponczxts, opponents, and hear arguments ozx the application. Any testimony or written commezxts gust be related to tlxe criteria set forth above. At tlxe conclusiozx of the review the Plannizxg Commission. may approve or deny the anal Site Plata. City regulatiozxs provide that tlxe Cezxtral Point City Council be informed about all Planning Commission-decisions, t__ ,-- ;_ ° ~~ >t~h~tct Peopeny _.~ , _._ _ _ . . ~~,rrv x ~~ ......_.. ~ ~$ OUKRA~.E _...___ ~_ €2 __.._.. _ 6lpt3C I ~~ ~;c~,~~lr ~;c°c~~~€3ci `~trc~c:t ~ {'c~€ttrr€1 1'<~€€~1, (BIZ ~)7`~{y~ • t ~+.t 1 ] t,~,<;- } ; ? 1 • I~<~x t5~t 1) t>t~~t-t>,~~t ..~ . . , "/ . .. ~ i~it t~ta!'t1 WL'~. ''. City c~£ t:~z~u•,~I >~otn.t cITY or- c~N~-RAI.. f'C71NT ~~~~~~.~`~' «~„ C?CPAf;TMENT C)f= ~'UaL1C YVGC;itS t'iazzzziztf; I)~xx"G[tzc~tC ~TAf=[= RCf'flE~T for OREGON DEf'Af~TM1=NT CAF TRAN~f'©RTATIflN MAI(~#T[=NANCF YARD SITE PLAN RCVIEW PW;`~00022 Date: July 5, 2800 Applicant/: Oregon Department of Transportation, 3500 NW Stewart Parkway, Qwner Roseburg, OR 97470 Agent: Raymond F. Cooper Project: Development of a 4,200 Maintenance Building "Pole Barn" location: West of Hamrick Road; South of i . Pine Street; north of [,TM pre-cast concrete facility legal: T37S, R2W, Secfion 01 C Tax Lot 3400 Zoning: M-2, Industrial-General Area 7.70 Acres. Units: Plans: 3 sheets of hand~irawn drawings illustrating, a site plan; existing irrigation, planting, and parking; and floor plan with building elevations; prepared by ODOT, dated 3-22-00. 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 commercial professional office facility. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding the propased development. The proposed Development is an addition to the existing maintenance related facilities at the site. This staff report also includes recommended requirements that are based on the limited amount of master planning performed in this area which involve [inviting and controlling access to E. Pine Street anti Hamrick Road, and other infrastructure master planning. Special Requirements 1. Existing fnfras(rucfure: If applicable, the Developer shall demonstrate that all connections to existing infrastructure {i.e. streets; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,} will not interfere with or provide for the degradation of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the aannection of the propased development's infrastructure, or will tae improved by and at the expense of the Develaper to accommodate the additional flows andlor demands; while maintaining or improving the existing level of service of the affected facility, as approved by {as applicable} the regulafory agency, utility owner, andlor property owner involved. 2. Master Plans: As briefly described above, in association with City PWD staff and property owners and representatives ar agents of Pulver and t_eever, the Pear Blossom Center, Bat~:er, and Valley of tf~e Rogue Bank. master plans are being prepared thYat incfude the iirnited connections to Pine Street; the interna# street driveway system; water, storm drain, and sanit~~ry sc',wer distributionlcollection/conveyance systems, and other utilities {natura! ryas, power. ~. ()1X17~Af<rr~rt (~'rarr(rtt`. lfcarvrrr~:~ lic>cl,l j'~3"1) Sr~rjj~Rejx>rt Jtrlt' S. 2(1(?() j'crgc' , telephone, etc.} for fhe subject tax lot and all the parcels between Bear Creek and Hamrick Road that adjoin to Pine Street. The master plans will also include "stub-outs" for connections to the surrounding parcels. The master plans will take into account ti7e flows or demands of the proposed development, any future development on neighboring portions of the subjecf tax to#, on neighboring properties, and any other areas deemed by the City that will need to connect into the proposed development's or existing neighboring infrastructure. 3. Easements: If applicable, fhe Developer shall provide suitable and acceptable ~~-foot-wide minimum easements for any City public works infrastructure located outside the public rights-of- way. These easements shall be dedicated for sole use by the City, and shall not overlap {crossings are acceptable, as long as required infrastructure separation is maintained} other utility or infrastructure easements. A separate 10-foot minimum width public utilities easement {P.U.E.}should also be required for utility installation outside the Hamrick Road right-of-way along the property's exterior frontage with Hamrick Road. 4. Clear Vision AreasiTrian ies. All driveway approaches of the proposed Development connecting to public roads shall 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 origintation and lane layout of the adjoining roads, in accordance with AASHTd clear sight-vision requirements. Adequate clear visor arealtriang[es shall also be maintained at all internal driveway intersections, as applicable. 5. Cmprovemenfs fo Hamrick Road and Right-of--Way t?edicafian: A traffic impact study for the Pear Blossom Center development, prepared by lit#elson & Associates, Inc., dated June 1999, has been submitted to the City. The traffics#udy analyzed the year 2903 {anticipated year of build-out of the center} projected traffic flows and intersection levels of service at the major street intersections most likely to be impacted from the Pear Blossom Center development. The traffic study included the residential development already approved to the north and east of the site {Walnut Grove, New Haven, Central Point East, and Parkwood Terrace); the USF Reddaway site, and the potential retailJprofessional office facilities on land owned by USF Reddaway on the southeast comer of the intersection of Hamrick Road and East Pine Street. However, the traffic impact study, does not include any new development along the southern frontage of E, Pine Street or "build-ou#" {i.e full development within the current UGB} traffic flow conditions for the northeast portion of the City which greatly influences the "build-out" design and right-of-way requirements and needs for two of the City's main arterial roads: Hamrick Road and East Pine Street. The City is currently updating the City's Transportation System Master Plan {TSP} which will classify certain streets and project "build-ou#" traffic flows for this northeast portion of the City. Unfortunately the overall road classification and lane determination needs far East Pine Street to accommodate "build-out" conditions have rat been determined by the City, nor by Jackson County. Thus, additional master planning will be warranted once the TSP is completed. However, it is projected that Phis additional master planning work will probably not be completed prior to the end of year 2001. Another issue rat addressed by the traffic impact study, is haw access to East Pine Street and Hamrick Road will be afforded/limited far the properties located to fhe south of East Pine Street in fhe area immc1diafely to the North of the proposed Developrr~ent; and what affects will development of fhe parcels to the south of E. Pine Street have an the identified streets and intc:rsectians in tt7e Pear Blossom Center Traffic (rr7pact Study ~ ry {?I}{JJ',~1<x:,rt f'rt~'elrr~, fl~rrrrrrx~lti A,:,t~f Jrrlt ~. _'{ltJ{t 1'<t t c' ~ To allow for developr~~ent of the proposed project prior to tl~e completion of ttae traffic master planning needed for the area, the City PWD recommends the fallowing: A. The Developer be required to construct street widening, bike lane, curb and gutter, storm drainage, sidewalk {min. 6-foot wide meandering, including applicable driveway aprons and wheel chair ramps}, planting strip with landscaping, traffic delineation, and street lighting (with maximum 20C~ foot spacing} improvements €or the portion of Hamrick Road that adjoin the proposed development. The portion of E. Pine Street that adjoin the subject development is developed as a "rural" road that does not meet current City or County urban standards. The road will need to be improved, as a minimum, to meet City standards, as reviewed and approved by ,Jackson County Roads, and the City PWD. This could be deferred {as executed in a deferred improvement agreement by and between the Developer and the CitylCounty} until other development is implemented on the adjoining parcels along Hamrick Road. B. Regarding the road right-of-way adjoining the proposed Development; the Developer be required to dedicate additional land far street and City utility purposes a minimum of 44 feet from the right-of-way centerline of E. Pine Street. This would accommodate a commercial/industrial 3-lane collector. Currently the right-af-way width on the "western half' of Hamrick Raad {centerline to property line} is 30 feet. This would require dedication of an additional 'i4 feet for road and City rand and utility improvement purposes. After completion of build-out master planningJconstructian, any dedicated property that was not necessary, would be "vacated" and returned to the adjoining parcels of the proposed Development. C. Pecause of access restrictions onto E. Pine Street and Hamrick Road, the City has been working with the property owners/developers to the north of the subject property an providing far a main access that would be accessible from the properties to the North. Currently because of access concerns to Hamrick Road, this access has been aligned along the subject property's northern boundary. As discussed with the applicant, a mutual access driveway or street could provide the necessary access. The applicant would also take access from this drivelstreet, and eliminate the property's d'€rect access onto Hamrick Road. To accommodate this future drivelstreet, the City PWD is recommending that the Developer be required to dedicate a 25-font width along the property's northern boundary far future road construction purposes, The dedication would contain a stipulation that if the road was not developed within a 15-year period, or was developed as a private drive, that the right~of-way would be vacated, as necessary. 6. Erosion Car~trol Plan: A suitable erasion control plan must be prepared and submitted to the C}regan Departmen# of Dnvironmental Quality {DPQ} and City PWD for the construction of any improvements associated with this development. 7. 5torrn Drainage Sy~t~rft: The storm drain system shall be designed to accommodate the storm water run-off from and run-on onto the proposed development {either surface run-on or culverf or creeklditch 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 tl7e proposed development`s SD System, Depending on to{~c~grapf~y, t1~~s may includrs surface water flows from the properties east, souti~< and west of the sut~ject tax lots tt7r~t drr~ir~ <~crr~ss tt~e r>~3!)~cvr.,t tax 1c}(r; E~iowc.ver, if applir,<~k71e, (f~c> City PWD ~s furtl~t~r R .t tll }t)7'Afatrtt i'rr~`elit t'. !l~tnu'tc'1 fir7ritl j'1S~(},Staff 1~'t'f>rrrt 1'u t; t' 4 recommending that the Developer be required fa design the storm drain conveyance system to accommodate projected past-development flaws from these adjoining properties. 8. Off Site Sforn7 G7rainac,~e lnfrasfruef~~re: For any storm drainage infrastructure constructed ar improved outside..the..City's rights-af-way or easements for drainage of surface waters from the subject development, the Developer shall provide a suitable document or documents which contain approvals far the implementation of such connection and/or improvements and which describe: C Who is responsible far the operation, maintenance, and repair of the infrastructure facilities to maintain the original design parameters associated with the infrastructure. If the City is to operate and maintain the infrastructure, the applicable funding mechanism that will be created (i.e local improvement district) for the associated City expenditures; a Now will alt-weather driveable access be afforded and maintained indefinitely to maintain and repair the infrastructure facilities; d That an easement or other suitable conveyance document has been granted, as necessary, to provide suitable access an private property for the inspection, maintenance, and repair work to be performed on the infrastructure facilities. The easement shall include a statement which allows access by City personnel for inspection, maintenance, and repair purposes. 9. Wafer Dr'sfribufion System and Fire Profection: 1# is recommended that the water system far the development and neighboring properties to the eas#, south, aid west shall be master planned, #a not only aacommoda#e the needs of the proposed Develapmen#, but to provide for mainline valves and stub-outs for future main distribution networks and "reinforced looping" of the adjoining properties to the east south and wes#. The future water distribution system for the proposed Deve#opment will be of "reinforced loop" design: a connection to the 12-inch waterline in E. Pine Stree#, and a connection to the 1fl-inch waterline in Hamrick Road. The water lines shat{ be sized to accommodate all fire demand flaws of the development. Fire hydrant or service vault locations and needs shall be determined by Fire District No. 3. Unless fire protection needs can be made from the on-site domestic well, it is recommended that development not proceed until adequate fire protection can be provided. GENERAL Public lmprovemenfs: Ail construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, and/ar upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prier 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 implementation. ?. Perrrtifs_~~rael A~~ro_v_~~ls: Developer sf~all provide copies of any permits, vari<~nces, approvals, and conditions as may be required by other agencies, including, but not limited ta, the Qregon Departrrlr.n~ ~~( t-ish and Wildlift~ {DFW), f7regon Departrnc:nt of Fnvrrt~nment4~l Qr~~~(ity {DEQ}. CN){77':4f<xrrt 1',rr'rlrt~', 7(rtnrrrc'~t 7iu,a<I Juts' .5, _'(1(J{t f'a s,=r 5 Oregon Division of State C.ands {DSI_}, U.S. Army Corps of engineers {ACQIw}, affected irrigation districts, and .lackson County Roads and Parks Services {,~C Roads}, lire District No. 3, and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {BCVSA}, as applicable. The Developer shall submit written approvals of the final construction plans from 1=ire District No_ 3 (fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access}, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {l3CVSA, far sanitary sewers}, and JC Roads, {E-lamrick Road improvements and drivewaylaccess road connections, as applicable} prior to #inal construction plan review and approval by City PWD. 3. As-Buills: 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 Mylarr~"} and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD~, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations {as appropriate} of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spot elevations identified on drawings; water lines, valves, and fire hydrants; wafer 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 AutoCAD° 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 othervrise 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 the plans. At feast one permanent benchmark shall be provided for the proposed development, the location of tf~e benchmark shaft be as jointly determined by the City PWD and the Developer`s surveyor. 5. Existing Infrastructure: As applicable, fceld verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations {i,e. pipe inverts, curb elevations, street elevations, etc.}, to which the proposed development w'sll connect into existing improvements, prior to final construction plan design and submittal 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. Fill 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 ~.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. Road/Drivev~r~/Parking Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soi4s and determine the access read, parking, and driveway section designs to f~andle the expected loads {includng fire et~uipment} to be traveled on these private driveways, access roads, and parking areas. Need to provide designed road section for review. The roadlstreefldriveway sections within the public rights-of-way shall be consteucted per fhe design of tl~c City PWD. A (~ ~ ''.. C)17t)7 1+1<trzrl I rzc'rlttt'. 1lcrrrrrr<'7 li<tucf J'If"J) 51tzf~Rt')xrrt Jr~la' S, ?Dt)U J'uc*c fi 8. Unlit Py tans: The l.Itll€fy plans S[lal[ bB draWn to sCaie Wltfl aCGl.lrate E~anZantal atld Vertical dBpiction of utilify lines and appurtenances {transfarmers, valves, etc.}. Utility infrastructure lacation must bB accurately included on the as-built drawings, ar as a separate sat of drawings attached to the as-built drawings. 9. Area L,r_ghfing Plan: Need to provide and implement an adBquatB area lighting plan far parking and access areas, including the driveway entrances. 10. Easements: l=asBmBnts for City infrastructure {i.B. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain [if appffcabiej} should bB a minimum of 15-feet wide, and should nat split ia# lines. Easements for public storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines shall be dedicated to thB Cfty and not just a P.U.E~, Centerline of buried infrastructure shaft bB aligned a minimum of fvB {5}feet from #hB edge of the Basemen#. If two or mare Ci#y owned a#ilities are lacy#Bd within an easement, than a minimum of 20-foo# width should bB required. f ~asemen# dedicd#ians in final deeds or CC&Rs need a statement which shauld clearly indicatB that easements must bB maintainBd with suitable, driveable vehicular access to City public fnfrastruc#urB facilities, as de#Brmined by #hB City PWD. 11. Storm Drarnage System: DBVBloper's Bngineer shall develop a facility plan far the storm drain collection, retention, and canveyancB system {SD System} which provides far storm water run- aff fram and run-an anta the proposed devefaprnent {Hither surfacB run-an or culvert ar crBekldi#ch canveyance}, any Bxisting ar future development an adjacent prapBrties, aonveyBd storm drainage, ar surface water flaw, and any areas deemed by the City that will need to canned-into the proposed dBVelopmBnt's SD System. As applicablB, Deve[aper's BngineBr shall determine how the SD system wiii work during 10- yBarand 10C} year flood events assacia#Bd with I3BaC Creak. identify the NGI_ in BBar Creek during 1 ~- and 100-year storm event, and what affect it will have on thB proposed outlets and s#orm drain system and building elevations. System should be dBSignBd to adequately drain a 10-year storm event withaut surcharging or shall providB adequate s#orage to preven# surcharging; and be designed to prevent backflow of water fram Bear Creek up into SD system during storm events. The design: of thB storm drain collection and conveyance system {SD System} should pravidB for storm wa#Br run-off from and run-an onto thB proposed development {Hither surface run-on or culvert or crBBklditch conveyancB}; thB DBVBloper shall dBmonstrate that thB starrn water flaws from the completion of thB propased development {and at any time prior to completion of development} do not BxcBed prBdevelopment flows into BBar Creek; or that allowances or pravisions have bBBn made {and approval of the applicable properties owners and regulatory agencies has bean obtained}, which accommodatB any additional flow which BxcBBd predBVBlapmBnt flows. The Developer and the City PWD shall agrBe on thB applicablB run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, etc., to bB used in the engineering calculations. DevBloper`s engineer shall provide a site drainage plan designed, at a rr~inium, to accommodate a 10 year storm event. The SD system must be designed to adequately drain the 10-year storrr~ event without surcharging or must be provided with adequate storage fo prevent surcharging; and be designed to not irr€pact Bxisting public storm drainage facilities. Catrh basins and area drams sf7all t7e designed for on-site sedirrrent and pefroleu~~~ hydrocarbon rotentit~n. The private storm drain systerr~ shall bc~ designed to directly connect to tl~ri pc~t)lic storm dr<~~n systr;rr7, t~r~c~ shall not bcs designed to d~schargc to the stret.t surfaces ~~ ()(7C)7~Afcstttt F`cs~'t(r!t'. ll<snrrre:{ /ir~<t,l t~rc'n srtrJ] Rcy}c„r Juli• 5, ~ClCill t'a~; c~ 7 Public storm drain pipe materials sha€l be PVC, NDPC, or reinforced concrete, with water-tight joints meeting the requirements of ASTM D3212, F477, and C443M, as applicable. 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 storir~ drain lines and shat! drain to the on-site private storm drain system. As applicable, any discharge points of the storm water facilities snail be designed to provide an aesthetically pleasing, useful, and low maintenance facility, that are designed to mitigate erosion, damage, or loss during a 100 year storm event; and that mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these types of facilities. Prior to City PWD construction plan review, the Developer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and prof#fe plots for sizing the SD system, which shall incorporate the use of the City PWD's raihfalllintensity curve, and Cify approved run-off coefficients, curve numbers, retardance, pipe roughness coefficients,-etc., that are used in the engineering calculations. - Sheet flow surface drainage from the property onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. Plans which propose to include the discharge to Bear Creek and any construction or modification within the floodway of Bear Creek or in the road ditches, shall be in compliance with DSL, ACQ1=, QDFW, D1WQ, JC Roads, and/or City PWD {as applicable} guidelines and requirements and any applicable conditions and or approvals, of these regulatory agencies. 12. Fire. Hydrants: Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. Fire Hydrants need to be connected to 8-inch-diameter and larger lines, with the supply lines being "looped" as feasible. if applicable, steamer ports at hydrants located near the building shall face the buildings. Fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. 13. Wafer Sysfem Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with C7regon Health Division {UND) and City requirements for cross connection control. if a pressurized irrigation system and/or domestic water wells exist on the property, the Developer will be required to install the required backflow prevention assemblies d'€rectly behind the City's water meters. 14. Water Sysfem: 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. 'f g. RooflArea Drains: All structures shall have roof drains, area drains, and/or crawl spaces with positive drainage away from the building. 16. Grading Plans: Grading plans shall 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 Tine width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 17 S~~.t~it~-~ry-Sewer tall sanitary sewer collfwct~on and conveyance syster~~ {SS System} cje~>igr~, ()I~t)1~hfttrtrt I'cr{-clrti-, tletrrrrt~'{ Rt~rrrl f'r~'1? ,Stt~(J fic(rnrr ,JrrlS~ S, y(I~tI Pas;c° 8 construction and testing shall confarr~~ to tl~e standards and guidelines of tt~e t~regon DE~Q, 1990 APWA Standards, Oregon Chapter, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {BCVSA}, and the City PWt.~ Standards, where applicable. The construction plans and the as-built drawings shall identify lateral stationing for construction of sewer laterals. 18. Water Rights: tf applicable, Developer shalE provide a Statement of Water Rights {an a City approved form}, for any affected properties. For properties determined to have water rights, the developer wil[ coordinafe with the State Watermaster the re-allocation of any wafers attached to (ands no longer irrigable as a result of the proposed development. ttt?CC}Mt~'IfNi)EI) t'I.,Ai~tti'I~'~i(~ 1}1?I'A1~.`I~fi'1I1I\f"I" C;{}NI)1`I'[()f~S ()I< A['I't~(}\~A~, 'I"}zc a}~provaf of"the Site }'Ialz sha}f expire i€z ol~c year oI~I ]ufy 1 }, 2001 unless aIZ app}icatit~n for a buildil~g permit or aIt application ft)r extension lzas been receivc~.d lzy tfzc: City. `I'IZe applicants}~ttll sczl?Init a revised site 1)fan depicting ally chazzgcs discussed az~d air}}rt>vcd ~zt t}~e publlc heaI'It~,= ~~'ItlllIl ~~ Cfi3yS of I?}<'tnnIIlg CC}I?1I17ISSiot1 a})1)rC}Vfil. 2. `I"he pz'oject must comply with all applical~Ie loca}, state and fedez'al regulations . The applicant sha}} provide 5 additional paved parking spaces. 4. T`he app}icant shall update a revised Iandscape and iz-rigation plazz that shows the location of z~.ew trees and shrubs. areas overgrown by weeds sl~zall be cleared to in)prove t}~e appearance ofthe existizag landscaping. L~cad s1~IZ-ubs and trees shall be replaced. ~~ ~~~<.. H -.2 # .. ~3~AR CR~~K VAL~.~Y ~ANITA~Y AUT~{~~[TY 3915 5ot17F! PACIFIC ltWY. tvSEdFgf~o, ORFGgN 97501.9099 • (541} 779.4144 • FAX (541} 535.527II JL}ly 3, 241{} Ken Gerscliler City of Central l'oiz~t Planza.in~; Depaztzxient 155 South Second Street Central Point, C)R 9542 ~:c: QA4T Stoz-a~;e I3uilditig, Filc # 00420-SPR Dear K.en, Cite cif Cexztx-al pains: ~.~.~~~~~~ tt~ tt planz~izl~ DePartrneztt Sewer service is available to the proposed development by connecting to tl~c existing; {~" sewer service line along the Southerly propez~y bozu~dazy. -Please lxave applicant contact BCVSl~. for permit and connection. information. Carl Tappert, PE District Engineer 1:`,I )l~~l ~~'..~ ~;c~~c ics';C.:1'.N'I~I''J -iJ}J ,l~ Ni~ICr .f){){)2f)-`~ 1'l~.t.~~J-~~; ~1 living on tlxe West property line. Tlxe Plazxzxiz~g f}epartznent zxxacle a site visit and dctcrzx~iz~ed that the fence was out of cozxxpliance and asked that the fezxce be reduced izx height to 6 azxd a lxalf feet provided by a ten percent adzxxinistrative variance. Mr. Muzphy trizxxzxxed a section of tl~e fence along the West property luxe but has asked that he be able to retaizx other portions ofthe fence that currently exceed tlxe maxizxxuzn height. Two of the neighbors along the side and z•ear property lines have reelucsted that the fence ren~aizx as is {Attachment F}. The neighbors to the West would like the fence to be reduced to code. If f ndzngs could be made for approval, tlxe applicant would be allowed to leave tlxe current fence in place. If findings could not be made the applicant would need to reduce the fczxcc height to code imnxediately. Findings of Fact & Conc~~sions of Law A variance nxay be granted if findings are made as follows: l .The strict application of the provisions would result in unnecessary hardship; or The strict application of the Ordinance for this application would not appear to create an unnecessary hardship on the applicant. 2. The fallowing considerations will either result from a granting of the variance or the fallowing considerations do not apply to the requested application; a. The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or fihe city, The request for an increased fence height will not necessarily provide any additional advantages to the neighborhood or the city. Two neighbors have asked that the fence height remain as-is for reasons of appearance and security. b. The variance will provide beautification to the neighborhood or the city, The applicant has invested time and money in fencing and landscaping for his property which likely has resulted in increased property value. c. The variance will provide safety to the neighborhood or the city, The increased fence height would not necessarily provide additional safety to the neighborhood. Neighbors to the East of the applicant believe the fence offers better security. d, The variance will provide protection to the ncigl~l~orl~ood or tl~e city, An increased fence height is not likely to provide additional protection to the neighborhood since the existing fence is of a varying height that ranges fracas ~ foot, 10 inches to 6 fact, 8 inches. e. The variance will not have any adverse impacts upon the neighborhood. Two neighboring property owners have submitted letters requesting that the fence remain at it's current height. The neighbors residing along the westerly property line have asked that the Variance not be granted. f. The variance will utilize property within the intent and purpose of the zone district. Woad fences like the one constructed by the applicant are commonly constructed in residential neighborhoods but rarely exceed the 6 foot maximum height. The applicant has submitted findings for consideration by the Commission ~ Attachment C}. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. 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 Variance application; or 3. Continue the review for the Variance application at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments: A. Application for Fence Varianca B. Notice of Maeting C. Applicant's Findings of Fact D. Applicant's Site Plan showing fence height E. Assessment Plat F. Correspondence from neighbors 1tCPPUPI~CIFlannin~l0of~32. WPD AP~'C.~~AT[tJN FC3~ FENCE VA~.~AN~~ CITY OF CENTRAL PC31NT PI_ANNtNG DEPARTMENT 1. APPLICANT INFORMATION ~~.f}-N~tr~~ ~,rn~,cs_Sr~ r Name: lrlri/ ~ /~ Address: / `~ .ar`c' ~' City: ~~ 1,v~" ~~~z Telephone: Bt~sirtess~...~;4~1~ ~rf~- ~-r,~.~~~' Residence; _ ~;~'~ 2,~ ~..~' 2. AGENT INFORMATION Name: ~- flip of C~zz~~ Fala.t Address: ~ .~~~.~ ~~.~ tt Piannin~ Depa~rtntm't City: Telephone: Business: Residence: r 3. c~WNI=R C}F REC4RD {Attach Separate sheet if More Tf~an Otte} Name: S Address: City: Telephone: Business: Residence: 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ~-- Township: ~7 Range: 2~ Section: ~© ,A _ Tax Lot{s}: 1~.~~ Zoning District: -{~V/-~, ~~st~e~~~~l_.s"r:~~t-~ ~=-;/,~ Total Acreage: - ~ General Description of Variance: ~,.~, ,~rta ~~-, ~ ~~'-- -eve ~ ~ ~ h f•-- ~f- ~.s; ~P -2a c~ r- 5. REQUIRI=D SUBMITTALS This Application Form Application Fee {$200.00} n to ~~-'- ,fie-{,4~-v ~v`~f:°} K".G . ~~~' J C}ne Copy of a Reduced Ptot Plan & / Elevations {8 112" x 11°} Written Authority from Propert}r Owner if Agent in Application Process Findings {Addressing Criteria in Section 1,20.080 of the Central Point Municipal Code? --~-}----~~al~-C~~rlpttt~~i o~f~tiie Prop~rfy_~_._._.._. L» ~ ! It7~ {}~o GK 2J ~L, ~'(S7`art~"Su.~t vr3Y~"1~ 6. I HEREBY STATE THE FACTS RI=LATEQ 1N THE ABOVE APPLICATION ANQ THE PLANS AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED HEREWITH ARE TRUE, CORRECT AND ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF ~~OWLEDGE. 1 certify that 1 am th property Owner or [ ~ ~tprized Agent of the C?wner of the proposed ~., X'L.~3,1VNI.tV~ L7EP.A.R ~MENZ` I~czt Gerschlex Caznznzzz~ity ~'lannex Matt Sazt~ztare Plazzzzizzg Teclzzzzczazz Meeting Date: Time: Place: Notice of Meeting Bate of Notice: July 12, 2000 August 1, 2000 7:00 p.m. Approximate) Central Point City IJall 155 South Second Street Central Point, C}regon Tazt~ JE-iizz~~~zhrey, .A.~C~' Ptaz~xting Di;rectax City a f Cen~~ Print ~j ~~H:~~T' ~t1~ tt Fl~.nning t3~:p~rtnten~t NATURE C)F MEETING Beginning at the above time and Place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an request to vary from the fence requirements oftlie Central Point Municipal Code at ~ 19 Palo Verde Way. This parcel islocated in a R-1-8, Residential Single-Family Zoning District on Jackson County Assessment Plat 37 2W 1 OBA 1200. The Central Point Planning Commission is being asked if portions of an existing fence can exceed the maximum height of six feet as required in the Central Point Municipal Code. At the meeting, the Commission will review the documentation submitted by the applicant and will decide whether or not to grant the Variance. Any party aggrieved by the decision of the Planning Commission may request review ofsuch action by the City Council. Such a request must be filed in writing to the City Administrator no mare than seven {7}days after a notif ication of the decision zs given to those parties whom provided comments to the Planning Commission. A decision by the Planning Commission could be affirmed by the City Council at the next regularly scheduled meeting ifa request for review is not received within the seven ('])day request period. The Central Point City Council reserves the right to approve, deny or modify a request for a fence variance. CRITERIA FC~R DECISION The requirements for fences are set forth in Chapter 15 ofthe Central Point Municipal Code, relating to fence variances. ~3 PUBLIC C(~MMEN"I~S Any person interested in coznzne~~ting an the abavc-mentioned laztd tzse decision znay stzbzzzit written comments up until the close of tl~e meeting scheduled far Tuesday, August ~, 2(}x}0. 2. written comments may be sent in advance of tl~e meeting to Central Point City hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, gI~ 9'75(?2. 3. Issues which may provide the basis far an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the cozncnent period noted above. Any testinzany and written comrrzents abatzt the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and. sl~atzld be stated clearly to tl~e Planning Commission. 4. Copies of all evidence relied. upon by the applicant are available for public review at City Hall, 1.55 South Second Street, Central Point, Oregon. Copies of the same are available at 15 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541 } 664- 3321 ext. 291. 155 South Second Street i Central Point, OR 9752 i {541} 664-3321 i Fax: (541} 664-6384 1 > [ <llo Yf'..rll ~"i YY icy Central i'oint, Oil 97SC}2 {5~ 1 } 66~-2773 To whom it may concern: This letter is concerning the application for a variance for our backyard fence. The following is to justify our request. 4~ity of Cext~r~I F~in~ ~~~~~~ J. GG~7? Piannin~ ~epa.rtme~i~t The variance will provide advantages to the neighborhood or the city because the fence was previously in severe disrepair and provided no privacy or protection for our connecting neighbors or our property. The new fence we built now provides this. The old fence was about the same height as the new one, however, rrmy yard is higher than my connecting neighbors to the north {behind me} and to the east {61.3 Palo Verde Way} and my yard was always pushing the old fence over. So to correct that problem, I had to dig a ditch and place the fence in that ditch, which was where the old fence was in the first place. This is why my fence is over 6 feet. Enclosed you will find letters from our neighbors on the north and east bordering properties, requesting that the fence remain as is. As you can tell by the letters, these neighbors are very happy with the new fence. Also enclosed are photos depicting the fence and the height from our yard level, 1 am 6'3". My concern when building the fence was for the beautification of the area and in order to do so, ~ kept the top of the fence level and because of that, part of the fence is over 6 feet. I and two of my neighbors are requesting a variance to keep the fence connecting our properties as is, nk You Dennis Murphy !~ J -~ ~' ~ __ ~~_~ ~ r ~~- ~- JJ r, ~r~ r ~L #~ ~~, Tt 37' ~ ~., ~ ~,~ : VV ~ ~M~~~rr 37 2VY !C~ ~A F 3t~N Ct~UNTY ~ ~"a ~ ~ ~~ Pt71N'C C ~"RA~ .' .,, ~A $GAL~ E ~ tOC+ • ,~ „„ONLY. . ~ iti . ; '.. . . s 2W ~vC r • ~* '1^ ~':. . ,.. _...s-.., ... : R~.:~tlL'!~`--'."t''°~-~-» .. ,~._..r~~''Y.:.'~,'31~.+~.,i i4.!frrEh'rilt~~ r` ..._... ~rrty!*r rst 'x0' • yh S t~,rsr r••s~f 3~i 4 ~x se fs t• ~ 400 300 200 u. +~~ 100 ~ ~ ~ ~ >r ~ b2sac A20ric G.Eia- O.E€€~e C.t2ac 4R2As kAe ~ K ~ t, «, ~ r, „ 1 , R # ~ 5700 ~ U.19AL h r.rA. 8 a r 5 7 a ~ r r 3 ~ e r, a r ~ r R yr~ ry it/V p/y /y ViJV (y J~ R {ir+~ {r~ ~ GVV ~ tL/V VL ~~ Y Z rrc.io- ~ 0.4?dc O.ZObc 0.25tr 0.26A: razor ' r 4 i ~E~ s *< *i `~- rrs y r S s 7 it,r g t t ~ ~v .. r E300~ ~4AG S? t ~ /r.~t It} ` ~ . J~ ~ }"~ ~ j =ear -~ 'r~ ~.e ~~'rrt.rrx rrsRt r'!. s rF ~}~ rf. fE 54;h; t ~ 4.$•tA¢ ~ 0 ~ ITO4} ~`c •'A~" ' i3 " " ~J r~b~ h~ ~ w ` ~ 0 eoaa .. ~ 1 (?~ r G`~'~ ~ + ~ ~KJO } 1 i t ~ < rta. r;~~i}`'r , ~ s tn°-.~.Ct ' tr.t ~~ ( A Q.~O " M r, AG ~Q«} « ~ r YS' 300 ~ ~^ ~., t ' , E 0 ,`a F, ~ o~ y1 ,,.r.,4 5200 a 2~2AO 4 r a.saaL ' ac ,s < ~ r. f~ v.~3AC k . ~ r a ~ c "r ~S20C}~*r•,r +4 ~ g Y e. - t d S8 3~ ~' O.C6At SHOD ~ ~ O.C2Ac t° 2i tc. s 0.2DAc . 0 €9AO y ~ 2'S i W ~ 1 ~ ., ~ ~ 90 2 ? ~ „t , 6 2300 ~ ~{} 0J Ae d C EdAL ' ~ ~ _ ~trxty{~~~ Q~cAC ~ 4 f• ; h fi * ~ ~ ~ ~ itt }y r~ m iJVA.1V 4.€DAL 4 «E i. Sa y n AY ,rrar rt. rt~tt rstr 2a g Q2&~tcr S.t ' .., , . ~ 9 ~ 2400 'L2A ' 2800 ~ 34{}0 ' ~ # y ~ ~ w Y 490G ~ 3. C ~ S ~ 0.2CAo ~ y.. T" Q ~" ~ i ! ~ r . C.r9A: :,3 r ~ 33 ,r E8 j~ j r~r. rr ~3 is ~ , ~ 7 t.se (~~ ~ {( }J Js .rt,r• ~~ ~p ` rr.~ria'AC nr 0~ AC ~..4 Y '~; ri.t 21E • tl ~ x'+n X00 taac F4~Y TIT~r~ CtJMi~A-N1C TNiS CUPY U~ AS5~SSOft'8 MAP i~ ~ROVIC3~t~ S{3LPLY T~ A$8t81 1N I.pCATiNt3 $UBJ~~7 PFt{~P~F~i'Y. NO E.tAB4L#TY IS ABSUM~p BY KAY ~4R biSCR~PANCI~S ~N 'fNIS MAP A8 UUTt-11~EQ AND l'1~~ AGGtIt~wANY9NG L~E?A4. p~B~REpTlUt~. THlS NlAP ~#~S #~~liN R~~UG~p IN SCA~.~', ......~..r..."".."".. of C~ttT~'ra~i-+Poixtt .~ ~ ~1~,~~~i 1 tt~ tt F~annin~ D~Partmen't l Fel~rr~{pry 2, 2~)()E} ~r'rrt ~af~rman ~~~ ~'a~~ `~.1~r~e ark, central ~~rrnf, ~~ ~`lJ~t`~~ To Whom It May Concern: Cif cif ~entrai Fozzt~ piannin~- Dep~r~ten't This is a request that the #enee between the Murphy's property at 619 Palo Verde Way, Central Point and Mine at 613 Palo Verde Way remain as is. My name is Jim Waterman and 1 live at 613 Palo Verde Way. My properly is on the east side of the Murphy's home. In spring of 1998 Mr. Murphy and his son, replaced an old fence between our properties with a new one. The old one was in very bad shape and the new one is a vast improvement. It's attractive, offers better security, and 1 have no problem with the present height of the fence. It is very close to the height of the old #ence and 1 would like to see it remain as it is. Sincerei , Felaru~~ry 2, 2000 ~c~r~ `f~. ~er~nett ~~~~ `3"c~c~~~r ~~ctc~ ~enfrcrl t~~irtt, ~~ ~`l~tJ~, To Whom It May Concern: This is a request that the fence between the Murphy's property at 619 Palo Verde Way, Central Point and Mine at 2x21 Taylor Road remain as is, My name is Earl Bennett and I live at 2021 Taylor Road. My property is on the north side of the Murphy's home. {Nis back yard and my back yard connect} In spring of 1998 Mr. Murphy and his son, replaced an old fence between our properties with a new one. The old one was in very bad shape and the new one is a vast improvement. It's attractive, offers better security, and I have no problem with the present height of the fence. It is very close to the height of the old fence and I would like to see it remain as it is. Sincerely, ~~ ~~ ~~~- July ()~() v^~~,~ dh< rei~;hbors of Dcr-~r,i ~~ C;krr~rie Cv1:,r,~i~v are signing this i~~~i r in SGi~;~l~r~~r~i of k~=e~ir~c~ tl~e presentfenc:e~ at ~~~ f'al~~ t;', ~a~,='brJa;r, as it is. The or~i f~~ncc: `fJ<:ls i!~ sev~;re disreC_,~ir ~~r~d ih~ nf~w one the NI!,rk>k,y°s replaced it with i;~ aitrac;ti~,~~ area c~kers rilttck~ hct~c' sec:arity to the neigho~(,ood. e have ak~souir.at~~ly rGo i~rc;k~i.n,rr~ ~~a~i~i-r tk~c pr~sGr~t height of the fence. It does not. in any way ok~struct our vies°~~. A ~ R. A ~ 1 ~, ~. f ,, ~r ~ ~ ,: w. , .~ .. ~. d PLANI~CNG DEP.r~.RTMENT STAFF REI't)RT I-TEARING DATE: la~zg~zst 1, 200 Td: FRAM: S [TBJECT: Owner/ Applicant: A~erzt: P~.e..~' Description/ Zoning: Summary Central Point Planning Commission Ken Gerschler, Comaaaunity Planner Public Hearing- Tentative Minor Partition for 37 2W 02CB Tax Lot-3700 Donald D. Cavin and Faye D.Smith 644 Maple Street Central Point, C}R 97502 Same 37 2W 02CB Tax Lot 3700, 0.35 acres R-2, Residential Two-Family District The applicants, Donald Cavin and Faye Smith are proposing the minor partition of a €1.35 acre parcel into two parcels. The property is located near the intersection of Seventh and Maple Streets in the R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a tentative land partition. hIotice of the public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. {l xhibit B}. Applicable Law CPMC 16.1(}.010 et seq. Tentative Plans CPMC 16.36.010 et seq. Major and Minor Land Partitions CPMC 17.24.010 et seq. R-2, Residential 'Iwo-Family District i~ e Discussion The applicants L}onald Cavin and Faye Sn-zitl~ are reci~.zcstiz~g ti~at a C?.35 acre parcel at 644 Maple Street be partitioned into 2 sepaz•ate paz•cels of 4.15 acres and 0.24 acres respectively ~ f5,ttaclln-tent A}. CPMC 17.24.454 describes the requires that corner lots have a mizrimuzrz area of '7,444 square feet and interior lots 6,444 square feet. The applicant wishes to retain the existing dwelling on tl•ze larger of the two lots and can meet the setback requirements with the lot configuration as proposed. The minimum setbacks for the R-2 zoning district are 24 feet for front, ten feet for side yards adjacent street rights of way and 5 feet for interior side yards. Back yard setbacks are 14 feet. CPMC 17.08.294 classifies the front lot line as the property line abutting a street and in the case of a corner lot, the property line having the shortest street frontage. The proposed partition would put the front lot lines for Parcels 1 and 2 along the Seventh Street frontage. Parcel 1 will have a 25 foot sight vision triangle at the intersection of Seventh and Maple Streets as measured from the property line. Parcel 2 is subject to a 15 foot sight vision triangle where the alleyway intersects Seventh street. t~ccess for the parcel 1 is taken from Maple Street while parcel 2 would use Seventh Street subject to the Public Works standards as described in The Green Book", 1f alley access is contemplated for parcel 2, the Public Works Department will require that alley improvements be constructed which could include storm drainage and paving. The Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the site plan and the tentative plan for the proposed minor land partition and have concluded that they comply with city requirements if all conditions of approval pez~taining to site development, minimum lot size, public works standards and specifications and access to public roadways can be met. Jackson County Fire District Number Three has submitted a copy of the tentative plat with an approval stamp { attachment D}. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law Minor Partition CPMC 16.14.414 requires that applications for tentative plans be submitted with improvement plans and other supplementary information as may be needed to indicate the development plaza. ~ The Proposed minor Partition satisfies the subdivision requirements listed in CPMC 16.36.03(} and CPMC 16.36A40, Tlie Public Works Department is requesting additional information to satisfy standard specification requirements. CPMC 17.2$.{?S(} establishes mininxunx area, widtlx a~xd access requirements for the R-l, Residential Single-Fazxxily district. ^ Parcels 1 and 2 of the proposed partition meet the area, width and access requirements for the R--2, Residential Two_Family District, Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No._____, approving the Tentative Minor Land Partition of 37 2W l I BA Tax Lot 3 I Of} subject to the recommended conditions of approval {Exhibits C and E ); or 2. ~}eny the proposed Tentative Minor Land Partition; or 3. Continue the review of the Tentative Minor Land Partition at the discretion of the Commission. Exhibits A. Tentative Piat B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Recomrraended Conditions of Approval D. Correspondence E. Public Works Staff Report dated .Tiny 25, X004 +^~ t ~, ~xy ; ' ~'` ~ ~~. wq blaL C~ oMa a «i ~ ~'~ ~ \~~ ar ,r~ ~~ ~~ 1r '/ K~> `~ ~~ . .,~ .fi? ~» ~~~ ~~~! ~~ ~~*~ #~ ,«.. .» ~ •~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ 1 { ~ ~ x .~~ ~ .~ ; ~ ~~ ~ "~ r ,. ~ ~ r '~ t ~~ 'iii "'z~ '~ \~ '~' i ~~ ~ ~ ~~ --ra 2 ~- .. .- _ ... ~ z ~ ~_ 4 `i~~ o~f'~'en~,~ar .~`oin~ P.L~ ~~1~'.NI.~''VG .L7.EPA.F~TM.E.t'~~" Ken Gerscitler Community Planner Matt Samitore ilanning Tecinnician Meeting Date: Time: Place: Notice of ~Vleeting Date of Notice: Judy .14, 2Q(~0 August 1, 2flOfl '7:~0 p.m. {Approximate Central Paint City Hall 155 South Second Street Central Point, Qregon `i'crcn Hutttphrcy, AICI' i'lannin~ ~lzrector City ~ f G'entr~i P`ttilint Planning Depar#me~I NATI..FRE OF MEETING Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review an application for tentative partition for a parcel of land located at 644 Maple Street. This parcel is located in a R-2, Residential Two-Family Zoning District and is identified in the records of the Jackson County Assessor as Map 3 `7 2W 02CB, Tax. Lot 37flU. If approved, the Commission would allow an existing 15,4C}Q square foot parcel to be divided into two separate tax lots. CRITERIA FUR DECISIUN The requirements for tentative partitions are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to general information, tentative plan approval and conditions on tentative plan approval. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC CUMMENTS 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, August 1, 2I100. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, f~R 9'75Q2. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration ofthe 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. I55 South Second Street ~ Central Point, QR 97502 ~ {54l 664-3321 ~ 'ax: {54l} 664-6384 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon by the applicant are available for public review at City I-~aii, Z5~ ~outiZ Second street, Central I'oiz~t, Ure~;on. 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. T '0.C\ H a k` Y~ G K c ~ ~ J_ Ne'k ~~F: Gay '" ~".r.. s ~a~~ ~ ~~'', 155 South Second Street * Central Point, 4R 975Q (541} 664-3321 ~ Fax: {541} 664-6384 City a f Cen ~~ F'a#~it .~~~~~ cc~~~ Punning i}~p~~ti EXHiBiT C PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECt~MMENDED CC7NlliTi{)NS 4F APPRfJVAL 1. The approval of the Tentative Plan shah expire in one year on August 1, 20fl 1 unless an application for fznal plat or extension has been received by the City. ~. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 3. The tentative and fznal plats shall depict utility easements requested by the City, BCVSA and WP Natural Gas. Any changes to utility layout including fzre hydrants shall require subsequent approval by the respective service provider. 4. Pending the approval of the City Administrator, the applicant shall enter into a deferred improvement agreement for parcels 1 and 2 of the proposed partition. BEAR ~REE~ VA~.L.~Y SANITARY AUTHt3RITY 3915 SOUTH PACIFIC HWY. • MEOFORp, OREGON 97'501-8049 + (541)77"9-4'144 • FAX {541) 535.5278 +~'~wr July ~ 9, 2000 City o f Cer-tarai Poiztt ~.~~~~~~`~~ tt~ tt men Gerschlex Piannin~ IJepartmen't City a£ Central Paint Planning Department 1SS South Second Street Central Paint, flR 97502 Re: Minor Land Partition for Donald Cavirt and Faye Smith Dear Ken, The existing residence currently has sewer service. Service to the prapased lot 2 will require the construction a£an 8" diameter main line an Seventh Street from the intersection a£Maple Street. This main must be designed and constructed in accordance with BCVSA standards. Please have applicant contact BCVSA far mare information on the connection requixeznents. Feel free to call me i£ you. have any questions. Sin~cer'ely, Carl Tappert, PE District Engineer I:IDATAIAgenciesiCENTPTtPLANNGI£aye-srzaith,wpd {!~ ^t7 - f „t .-._~ j ~Y ) 4C t fr r 1e Ft ~ ~ +~7~~ 7~ i r ~Or ~O4' ° ( t F ~y (u ~~' cxv-r j°c n t d 1 f[ 1 !!' hh ~ C~'r 4. r t r l f Q i tJ Of. n! 1 ~ ~ fZcs itk'ticc rf ~ C7 Cfl aoo 4,, s tf? r 1 Cor;3t n ~ F fr, ~. t ~ c ~~{jO~radl O ~~aFF rj3hfa' ~ ~~ ~ r r, N-G.'^' R arrrranr Grin-fix ~ rf da oarAS Sr r.AFa A~~G ~`~~¢, ~ ~~ f' ? {~, ~ ~~//~`-"'^ -F+ ~ O ~t4•l ¢Ol a''ct aOV Oh ~`~ 1 1(T. ~ O e ~a~ ra LaT '~ ~ ~ ~ , Y grk~f .. n°4n' ~bc f •~ ~~ - _.. ~~-~___ C'~+se~; ~ ;gin F'9,h h / ~ ...,. .. ~a^n rA608 ~ ~ ~~ y /rGtd'Y ~~F'r,,"'~ ~ N1~4[ _ ~L a ~J- S r Ri ~ C3LOC+E .55_".. ~.. - iip. `-w~---°yt 1 ,T` a ( 1 ~.~, ago ~ ~ ,~~ F1 ~ ! r -._._-~ ,~ ~4~ F . ! ~m f -f -4 j r ~ ' j t 1 i r Ij f( /J/ft .; U' ~ O F F ~pUU c Y U~,ffi ~ {!t t ` ~~x C7,Sy ~ ! Q7' ;; j 1 <i e,y.~ 's f --._ . {o'rb' Lo7 r ~ rte ( °~^----_~ - I jj" ~~~"1 --.__`_ ------- `~~ ~~ o~`~ o ,S 4 • n 4 .~ City ~fTCentTr+~I ~~int ~~1~.1..~1. #t~ ~Cf i~~.I1TtiI1~ ~~1aI"t~liEIlt ~~t~ of central Port 1~t T E R MEMO O F F I C E To; Torn Humphrey, Planning Director Pram: Lee Brennan, Public Works Director Subject: Memorandum Regarding Public Works Department Recommendations for the Tentative Land Partition and Zoning Variance Requests for property located at 644 Maple Street Date: July 25, 2000 It is the Public Works Department's recommendations that if the Planning Gornrnission approves the Tentative land partition and zoning variance request for the subject property, that the noted conditions are attached to the approval/variance granted: Maple and Seventh Street Improvements: Constructlreconstruct required driveway apron and any applicable sidewalk sections (including curb and gutter sections, as applicable to current Gity standards for portions of the subject property that border Maple and Seventh Streets. 2. .~Iley Improvements: If the Developer is going to take vehicular access to either of he two parcels from the alley, then it is recommended that the Developer be required to complete the required improvements to the alley to bring it to urban standards, including but not limited to paving including street section}, concrete alley apron, trafi•ac delineation, and storm drainage infrastructure improvements. 3. Site DrainagelStarm grain 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 an the site plan. This will require site drainage improvements to the entire tax lot. The current sheet flow surface drainage from the properties onto the public rights-of-way or onto neighboring properties is unacceptable. The PWD review of this project will require a drainage plan which illustrates existing and future surface grades which illustrate surface drainage flow direction. The Developer shall verify that the roof drains or foundation drains are not connected to the sanitary sewer system, but which are connected to either discharge at the face of the curb, or into the storm drainage system. )f the roof or foundation drains discharge to the sanitary sewer system, than the Developer will be required to modify the drains so that they discharge to a newly installed collection system that discharges at the face of the curb. 4. flrivewavs. Access Roads and Parking Areas: The Developer shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and determine the access road/driveway sec#ion designs to 644 MaPte street Tentative Land Partitioru2oning Uarrarace July 25, 2L1tJC1 Page 2 handle the expected loads {including fire equipmen#} to be traveled on these private driveways/access roads. All driveways, access reads, and parking areas should either have asphalt or cement concrete surfaces. 5. Uti/ity ~asemenfs: A 1 ~7-foo# wide public utility easement {PUE} will be required along the subject property's frontages with Seventh Street. A P.U.E. will not be required along Maple Street, as the 80-foot-wide right-af-way already accommodates this, based an the present and future projected development of Maple Street. f. Cif Water Service RevisionlU rade and Backf/ow Prevention Assemb/ Installation: As applicable, 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 to each individual buildingJlot. Approved backflow prevention assembly installation {at the Developer's expense} may be required directly behind all the City water service meters that service the proposed developments. Any new connections fo the City's water system to facilitate the proposed developmen# shall be performed by the City at the Developer`s expense. General Development Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval, engineered plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modifications within the City or public rights-af-way and easements, ar for connections #o City infrastructure. Plans shall show 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 36-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}; and street lighting. A11 construction of public improvements shall conform #o the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, decals, 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, infrastructure or access changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing to the City PWD for approval prior to installation. 2. Approvals: As applicable, Fire District No. 3 {fire hydrant accessllocation, fire flow capacity/line sizing, and emergency vehicle access} and Bear Creek Valley Sanitary e.~ 1544 Maple Street 7"entafive Land Partifion2onirtg itariance July ~S, 2t1t1Q Page 3 Authority {BCVSA, far sanitary sewers}written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final construction plan review and approval by City PWD. 3. As-Guilts: As applicable, 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 bath a "hard copy" farm {produced an Mylar~} and in a "digital" format compatible with AutaCAD~', or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to final approved canstructian plans which identify the locations and or elevations {as appropriate} of actual installed items, including, but not limited to, invert, inlet, and rim or lip elevations; spat elevations identified an 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-[ine" hard copy {on Myla~'}, or an approved alternative format, of construction drawings, and if feasible, an acceptable AutoCAD~ compatible drawing electronic ale to the City at completion of canstructian and prior to acceptance of public infrastructure facilities completed as part of the proposed development, or as otherwise approved by the City Administrator or his designee. 4. Elevations: All elevations used on the construction plans, and on temporary benchmarks shall be nett into an established City approved benchmark and be so noted on the plans. 5. Existinq„lnfrasfructure: As applicable, field verify all existing infrastructure elevations and locations {i.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 submittal far 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. Fill 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 'i .5-feet of ail placed outside of public rights-of-way and that does not underlie building, structures, or traveled vehicular access ways or parking areas. 7. Utility Plans: As built drawings shall reflect all utility locations; located both above and below ground. 8. Water S~rstem Cross Connection Control: Developer shall comply with Oregon 614 Made Street Tentative Land PartitionlZoning t~ariarace July 25, 2040 Page d Health Division (QHD} and City requirements for cross connection control. 9. Water Sysfem: Construction drawings shall include the size, type, and location 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. 10. RooflArea Drains: All structures 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, 1 ~I . 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 limes should be labeled with elevations. 12. Clear Vision AreaslTrianales. All driveway approaches of the proposed Development connecting to public roads or alleys, and the alley connection to Seventh Street shall maintain the required sight vision triangles {25-feet, each side} as measured from the edge of the right-of-way to the center of the driveway. As applicable, this may require the removal of vegetation or structures to obtain the required clear sight-vision area. ~~ PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPC3RT ~-IEARIItiiG T~ATE: Au~rast ~, 200C} T(J: Central Paint Planning Commission FROM: Tom Humphrey AICP,Planning Director SUB~TECT: Public wearing -Tentative Flan for the Walnut Grove Planned Unit Development located on 37 2W 02, Tax Lot 100 and 37 2W 1BB, Tax Lots 1200 & 1301. A~„i_caczt/ Walnut Grove, LLC (Jwner: P.C}. Box 3216 Ashland, C}R 97520 AgeYlt The Richard Stevens Company, LLC P,{~. Box 4368 Medford, C}R 97501 Prc~pert~ Description/ 37 2W 02, Tax Lot 100 and 37 2W 1BB, Tax Lots 1200 and 1301 - 32.2 acres Zoning R-3, Residential Multiple-Family Surnnaarv The applicants have submitted a preliminary development plan for aResidential Planned Unit Develapment {PtTD} consisting of200 singlefamily lots; private streets and walkways; RV storage, recreation areas and open space. The site was previously approved by the City and has been developing as a mobile home park. Approval ofthis request would subdivide the underlyin ;park property into individual lots upon which the manufactured homes would continue to be built. The main difference being that financing for the homes could then be tied to separate parcels and improve interest rates and home sales. CC& Rs will govern the use, maintenance and continued~~f~o~ectio~~ ofthe subdivision/PUD. The PUD is being pursued because it allows the applicants mare development flexibility with lot area, roads and setbacl~s without the necessity of applying for variances. Authority CPMC 1.24.020 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a preliminary development plan for PUDs. Notice ofthe public hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060. {Attachment B}. v ... ~ L; Applicable Law CPMC 16.10.010 et seq.- Tentative Plans CPMC 17.28.010 et seq.- R-3 Residential lVlultiple-Family District CPMC 17.60.010 et seq.- General Regulations CPl~1C 17.64.010 et seq.- ©ff St~•eet Parking CPMC 1'7.68.010 et sect.- Planned Unit Levelopment Discussion The applicants are proposing the development ofa manufactured home subdivision. inthe R-3 zoning district. The overall density ofthis PLTD is approximately 6.2 units per grass acre which is less than the 24 units per acre allowed in then-3 zoning district. Reduced road widths, open space and larger parcels near the two entry ways account for the lower overall density. I-~omes will be more affordable single-family dwellings.. The property surrounding the site isoccupied bysingle-family dwellings (existing and under construction}, and vacant agricultural land. There are a number of existing improvements along the applicant's Vilasl~amrick Road frontage and they Dave already been extended into the site. The public works department has specified right-of--way dedication and improvements that are necessary and consistent with other improvements that have been made along Hamrick Road. The applicants are proposing to satisfy on site parking requirements by providing two covered spaces per lot. lfacceptable, this arrangement would satisfy the requirements specified in Section 17.61.040. Residential conditions far PUDs may requirethat boats, trailers and campers be stored in designated areas only and this is what the have done by creating a storage area in the center ofthe subdivision. According to the municipal code, security and visual screening DERV storage areas in PUDs may be assured by the construction of permanent walls not less than seven feet in height. BCVSA has stated that a large portion ofthe sanitary sewer has already been constructed as part ofthe first phase ofthis project and the extension of sewer lines to the remainder must satisfy District requirements. The City Public Works Department has pointed out that the existing mobile home park has a private water system which would have to be inspected and approved for use by the Oregon Health Division if the applicants elect to meter and bill individual lots. Public Works has no objection to the concept of subdividing the property for development provided previous conditions of approval remain in effect with the PtTD. Findings of Fact & Conclusic~c~~ of Law Sr~t~ ctf the 7'~II.~ sr~e The municipal code requires that a PUTS be on a tract of land dive acres or larger unless extenuating circumstances exist to develop a smaller parcel. In this case, the area totals approximately 32 acres. .~ . C`filet°ict t~ C.~rcrnt cat- I~etay cr 1'I11.7 In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards i'rom Section 17.68.040: A. That the development of a harmonious, integrated plazz justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; ^ The applicants preliminary development plan proposes single family dwellings itt the context ofa manufactured home parksimilarto theMeadows. Theproposal is consistent with R-3 aonittg and compatible with surrounding housing styles and densities. The overall housing density is actually less titan the 24 unit per acre maximum for the R-3 district. B. The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zonizzg ordinance and other applicable policies of the City, ^ This proposal is Consistent with Comprehensive Plan Housing +Goals to the degt•ee it ensures adequate housing will be provided; contributes to the variety of housing offered and promotestheopenandfreechoiceofhottsittgforpersonswishittgtoreside ittCetttral Point, Ft•om a City policy standpoint Walnut Grove promotes more compact housing and other designs that potentially minimize the need for costly and unnecessary streets, walks attd other municipal expenditures. Zoning code objectives cart be met ifrecommended planning, building and public works conditions can be satisfied. C. The location, size, design and operating characteristics ofthe PUD will have minimal adverse impact on the livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area; ~ As has been stated the preliminary development plan is consistent with R-3 zottirtg and compatible with surrounding totting and housing styles. The self-contained nature of the deveioptnetttwillhove little impact upon the livability ofsurrounding neighborhoods and may in fact contribute to a greater sense of community given fire interconnectedness of the two subdivisions, Infrastructure will be tied into new and existing systems which have adequate capacity. Property management and covenactts will govern the maintenance and overall appeat•ance of the PTJD, D. That the proponents ofthe PL]I~ have demonstrated that they are financially able to carzy out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction with a reasonable time as determined by the Commission; ^ Neither aft economic feasibility report nor market analysis has been pet•formed to staff's knowledge. However the applicants have stated that it has been difficult to market fire manufactured homes on leased spaces due to increases itt interest rates. They believe ~ 4 ,~ . that by szzbdividing the property and sellizzg lots and Izonzes togethez•, more pz^osl~ective buyers will qualify for lower izzterest rates and home fizzazzcizzg. E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or Mill be obviated by demonstz-able provisions in tl~e plan for pz-oper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; ^ Thez•e will be two points ofaccess with this development for both vehicles and pedestrians a thiz•d point of access is provided from azz adjoining subdivisiozz. Due to the lack of sidewalks along Hamrick Road, the development Will be predornizzantly automobile oriented. However the roadway has rnoz•e than adegzzate capacity, the access has been approved by Jacksozz County, external circulation will not adversely effect neighboring properties and internal eiz^eulatiozz will be satisfactory provided parking is limited to one side, sidewalks are installed and roadway widths are increased to 2~ feet (per DPW recommendations). F. That corrlmercial development in a PUf} is needed at the proposed location to prov~3~~luate commercial facilities ofthe type proposed; ^ There is zzo cornrnez•cial development proposed izz Walnut Grove Village. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary stora ;e; ^ There is no industrial development proposed izz Walnut Gz•ove Village. K. The Ply preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; ^ The preliminazy development plan depicts recreational and open space areas throughout the PUD. The public works department is recornrnendingthatsurface runoffbedirected away from the irrigation facilities and into the storm water system that has been constructed. An adjoining property owner, dam ~nkley has expressed his concern about the maintenance of irrigation facilities, sewer and storm water lines constructed in con junction with the project. The mobile home park infrastructure has had time to pz•ove itself and Mr. fnkley believes that storm water easements and irrigation facilities aren't being property maintained and would like to see better rnonitoz•ing. The I'LUp will be compatible with the surrounding area; ^ The Walnczt Grove PUD is compatible with the surrounding area to the extent that it maintains a similarzoningdensity and architectural style. Connecting this development with residential subdivisions to the north via Hawthorne Way has proven to be v - ,~ „ ,. { ~. advantageous to botlx developments. Co~~secl~~ently, the PUL? is compatible with neighboring properties. The PUD will reduce need foz• public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses far the land; ^ Private streets and the open space areas will be maintained by the property owner acid/or a homeowners association thereby red~rcing the need for pi~blzc services provided by the City. However the owners would like to contract with Central Foint for street sweeping. Recommendation Staff='recammez~ds that the Planning Cammissiarz take one afthe ~`alla~ving actiazzs: l .Adapt Resolution Na.____, approving the PUD Preliminary Development Plan and subdivision subject to the recommended conditions of approval {Attachment C }; or 2. Deny the proposed Preliminary Development Plan and subdivision; or 3. Continue the review afthe Preliminary Development Plan and subdivision at the discretion of tlae Commission. Attachments A. Memorandum, fzndings and exhibits submitted by the applicant B. Notice of Public Hearing C. Correspondence D. Planning Department Conditions E. Public Works Memorandum and Staff Report dated July l ~, 197 ~ ~~ ~ ,; Pt_ANNIhIC CaMM[SIt3N ATTACMENT A ~~~~~ 'l<'o: Tom Humphrey, Pla~~n~~e~tor From P.ichard Stevens Subject: Walnut Grove dates July 25, 2000 This memorandum is to establish the development pattern for Walnut Grove PtTD and subdivision. The application for a PUCE and tentative plat, as previous stated, is intended to continue the use of the site in the manner previously approved by the City of Central Point. The development pattern of the property will be in approximately 20 unit phases which will be based upon logical extensions or segments of the project. In addition, it is important to recognize the continuation of the setbacks established for the underlying approved project as the setback standards for Walnut Grove PT..TI.~. As a result, the setback standards for Walnut Grove PUD are as follows: 3 foot side yard 10 foot minimum front yard ~ foot rear yard for interior lots 6 foot rear yard on perimeter lets These setback standards will continue the established pattern within Walnut Grove. v ~~ 4 mm-ntaa c%.. uc rrnx-nxro xxe ew.. w.e, w* •*wx na m..~e. '.". ~„w. t r. n», a. axu. w i+ro ~w~ ,ro~,w, G wu o5~w>~r+t.tw a e. ar, w xtxx-n ta, . ~w~nwr~w oarmx aWe 5q+r ~~naax ~ dwrr p e•. enww. p eru~ `~ ~s.e«.c~~n,xx~ 'wsr µt ae •rax xx.xwc ,r t` , y~ c..,..~ « n»x ~.x,.nn, A+~ ~t ~ .; ~~ ~u.~c_nu~n 7~ ~@, ~ay1 aorw"ra + gyn.. cowxw, a qw+. a-*r c.~..r~r+ w vxn M.M1'rS6N Y~m_ t I OWk FW?. PR t~i# ~~ ~ uC +w+ n.... a .»n ate' ~cc~µywh,wH .a,. ar nm ~•e•~ x~ . ww+d % t +c ch .:~ pA-1yrw.ro~u~~na~a 5~1 3~ a~ p~rvt .xarwec.r,:ap a%'+r....~y a. nt+. a .gym arz+aa~rz,x,m ~•.~h o•~ii am ~~.wa~ ~ e ~' • h ar.*. v we. +ni~ ur n•"i.t o-e •rea. ~x+xes-~ s ap'~'•asc~M+~ wr.n a nx• x~c'a..~ a~~ ro., ex asaox w+.a•os-~~ wr.,.•~i.~a yea nxo ~ a avr f='+w a.~t a+ ex+m cti'a o•~~prvur. t »v rtw ew rsr+x •c.a~w~uM+ tax ~ ~+i 4R •rRi e~ N i "' I .~ ~~ ~~n ~ a+w 3y .~ ~ ~ » '.fir >~~ F {F~ I ~°.~ ~.ALNUT ~ROV.~' F. U.D. TEN?~'A7'IVE S tt20 ~~~ o ~ cr+t ~ ~ ~ r~ M~~ )1 .J i0+ t ~ ~67 1~4~ j i F 7 t l2 9 fj~, } ~ ~p~} 'G' ST RRBT r two i 7 }~ l&4 ~S ~Bd ". °° 1i6~ i~ Ski ~~ aaq '~ 14x 108 spa is~a ~+ s~a 384 ; i~7D .. [~5T _ t~+2 _ 135 _ ofo'~•aA 143 1~4 ~.tp ~• ~ 1T5 ww _~ I60 awe ~ ~ 23; ao,o t2+ • awo tT~+ FL4 xw Sawu2 ~• 170 iT(x f~63 22y~4 ;~ SU?p2 +D#3 ~ !IN a F i 5 l w C 1 t ya ~ ~0 SC~2 Ll L4 74 ~R ~ ~ ~ 7 ~~ m~. w~n,na.,ao, •+w.r°~ a i•xaw M~wr~i ?iw wie~ c~na4~ r'rat ~ r~ gC~w.iw •+++. n rrac~ ,1Ri N••a•r.• a~+r hrt d •!un ~~r ~~ xix ae+.• ~TVm i ~ aww~ G•~rw rv•.•, a •r.w xa~x~eanuz.o. •+•r tr~w.r hr+ a •!atr p~w• Mn Mn• Ma, a f rym t ova zw4 ~ wo2 ~2 Z~0 PA Iw 1~7 tyq !~ tMw 2~5 a~ .'~.b uo-r+ .Fioo ;., s +jw f0 3~4 ~R 3~7 ~ sfn +4 uoa .x~o +.~sa .~uo2 33 «rw 5+ 5Z O8 ~ ~ * l-, +' "~8,~\,"~' 57 r~iv F! , ~ ~~`~~•''., ~ a~~ •' /J~~`~,} \ 'A" STR.B6T _ ~ ~ ~ _ '.i' . ~~ r t F ~ •~ xar foray nRrvs = ~ fjJ ~,,w r " _ ~ `^4' '`"~ • r s ~ a+'J• ~ iN+ ~ :8M aYw 53d• ~ aiS• ~^ wry ~.~~ "f'~~~~° ~ ~~~ r j p. f 4- "~~~ g?•,ae xo aau r•~x + iti. ti f _.._._.-.- ~~iaatl..~....~___..,~ r~x~ f/! fdwx mr ~ I kT90. an su N ~ Mas+asa v~m~ aa'~ ~~.t9 U?t `dy' aC` _ ~ ,,~~ ............ t~~y~li _..-._.,. ....... .... __._..~_... ._.__ ~ ~ ~~ ll L .~.. ¢ ~_.. , ._...,... SAYhtYNkB ARtY$,,,_ _ ~ .. __.._._ _ ,_,.., Y~ ~,.~•~G° y~~c s•'~~tf W add 'uyYd' ~'" Y~Y`Q ,~ ,dc ~ ^p~F' a' aoa ~ ~' s~ 4 1i"s~' Y~~-° ~x'-iw wzo o a ,tea w~.o 6 .moo •p +j' $ 3? atl 2 - TC, tO4 & 9? 'w+! tUt3 - 1'G S2OO, FOOL