Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - December 5, 2000~ ~ ~ "" 'f"~i' ~3, " „~"'f ~~ ~ r i ti~~ i " .. iM t~ ~ . " a oq' id, r 4 MIS i~~ ~ h.,p i ~ ! M wJ " ,~ 1r w i. a { i ~ "~,'' ~ ~° + ~ ~' "M 4 m'~. gym.. ~d;jd ~,~~'~~ " 17~~~ gg ~ ~ M % R ~ ~~ ~d a I ~' li w ~ 1 ~~~ ~~ F,~N w ~ M; M d aQ pM ~ tl II '~ ~ n h ~ EI 1i~ 0 ~p 1 ' N ~ ~ qP y A ~ M ^i rl i' y t 4 1 ~ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ v ~o d p V ~ ~0,, M M' u., M ," . , ~ ~ ~ „ o 4~, ~i i ,. j P. t r" M 1~ i ~~ ~ ~, p;~ i r N~48 ~ ~~ 'mY M: ~ ._ iii f ~ r ~ik ' E y i m u N ~ t ~ I r M~ ~ m ti " ~rvo i M1 ~, d ~, I P ~ ~ ~ Arm b ~" V I M ~ r p o r; 4 ~ p ~, , ~ p. ~ " M ~ 9 g ~ ~ ~ 'c v ' ~, r ~ ~ ~, M 7 M o ~,~ a p l ~ M A 1 ~„ V y F of ~ ~ i J d u d ~., ~ ~w '~g M y~i~~ ~ T ~MI ~ 0 1 ~~ ~ M ~~ i p' ~ b ry' ^ W ~ ~n "~ ~ '~ I ^ ~ h m ' 1 ~ M ~M M" X r tl~ M p h '~', ~ ^ 0 ~ ~ I ¢~~' ^s a; e l ~ ' I, . ~ ~ M d ~u n ~ u~ rrA ~ ~ m q k~ '~ , , .. H ~! v y ~ v " 4 + " ~ ~ ~ ~ d' " ~ '' i i „ ~,~~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~~ ~ n e d BM 6w 4 ~,' I ~ "~~ r,"~" ~" ~~ " "~".. P"N M", ~" M ~ Irr ~,~til~. ~'~~ A ~ ~ ~ !",r ~!, ~~`' „d 0 N M ~~~ , " ~„ a ~ , k...,.. rr ~ 1 M ~ I ~ MR I f ~ MI 1 ~ 1 ^ M M ~, 1 ° ~ I ~ ~~" ~ g, ! ~M I ~~ X ~ ~ M ~; ~N ~ ~ ~ ~'N ~ ~ M ~ ~ ~ ~ 4M~ P ~ i f " p ~ ~ ~~ ~ i i a 1~ P M ' , ' ~ WM ~M ~ f ~ d ^i n"~ ~V + i ri h!~ V i ii nu "; > ~ u air i ~' ~ ' -0 A V l ), ~ I~ C I S ~ ~ I I T ~ I M1( y 1 I ~ " d) M N ail In i, ~'~'~ ~ '' M ~ ~~ Q I Y~' r I I~ " WW ~' ~ ~ tx + ~ ~ ~~~ i, ~[ ~I ~~~~ _ Iii s7 iL ,11 iM~ M ~ ~M ~ ( ~ '~~ pMO ~~'~' ~ ~d m~ M p 1 ~,p " ~ 9l ~ ~ M V ~ A pill I ( I ~ M c .,t ~.t. ~) ! _ _t ~ ~ %.~ M@~~ J V pNl Il ~ ~ ~~~~~ p ~ w ~ ~i t! P ~w V ~ ~~( d11 I~, 1~NI ~ ~ 7 ~~ j1 -1 iln~ Vy g i ~ v it 1 1, ~ ,y ~ ~i ~ --~ l f { 7 `+ - IL _ ~ k, i k:~C 1, ~. ' 1 M M q ~" .~p~ f~ ^Ia y ~ M ~ a ~ ~ ~ Y i l ~ ~~ ~ ~~ . ~ i ~ j ~ ~s w uR "w4 ~ . ~ ~ ~ t ct_~ 1 e _ i" a _ ~ ~ ~ ^ i ~ ;! 1 i.lf 6 r )~ ~ ,~ .~~'t1 U? 1 n 1 " e i I g N I'. d(1 1' ~ . ~ ~ i ." n 0~ i s I~ ~, m r ~ ~ 1 r d6 V I d pf rM o f m n.... YM u ~ w !~ ~ ~ 410 ~ ti ~~,~~ 11 iC~ i.. .. _ .. ~ ~ _ ii%~ ~~ - ~ ~,, ( M ~ I y~ wry ~ ~hld~ p' - ~ 1~ w r '~ i ~~~ r~~~,t, _~~ ~3~' ~ ~, , ~ i~_ ~ , ~ ._~. ,c , f ~ ~, ~ rd ~~'~ ",y a ,,q o ~"~ ~ ~; ~ P I ~ ~ '~ ~ z ~ t~,~n!~'is ~~ ~ ~,n 14 i , ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ' I ~d r (M ( i i Y ~ ~~ y' IR 1~ ~( .. , t , ~ i y ~ ~ ~~ l 9 7 l I~ ~~ ~ PI ~ ~ b ~ j i o 1/ f ` ~~ S i r h ^n l ^ ~ I ~ i d ~ rl i ~pid / a,, ~ ~ Mx~ r~, ~ ~ N " ~ p M rii' i I i ~ i ~ ~ ~~ ',m ~ a A I ~ ~ itii ~ ~ p i i j ~ e a' e "d~ ~r~ ' ~~ ~ iw die ,yu ai ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ .: ~ i ~ n ~~ l~ V ~ 1 ~ ~ 8 9 ro i ~~ ~ bi ~i ~H . ., , ~i~ ry `~ ~ ° i i ~ M ~" ~ I yryY' ~~ ~ ' ~ VI '„ IY~i ~A .~" 1 ~I~ 1 a ~ 1 I ~ ~,I l ~ Ali ~ i ~' ~ ~~ f ARM A P ~ " C l ~ ~~"~~ '~ I ~ wu N M ~ ~~' Yr M rit~p P ~' ~ prp?o it ~ it ~ V '~ v ~ M i. ti, t ~~ ~ M,.r m^~r~ xr ~ iM M '"T' I tl A ~~ M R I I~( ~ ~w d e Fyn 10 ~ ' ~ ~ ^ Y ~ ~ IM ~ I~' ~ ~~ P rt i' K IA 9 1.w i 4 ~ , m ~ A Yv i. ~ "x ,.w I a ~ " "" „~ i .v n t .. " ~ d ~ lip a ~ I " ~ k " ~t"'N " %'!. I " ~ .. u d ~ ";~~h, . r u .": ~~" ^ ~~~ wu~ ~ M + u VII. MISCELLANE()i.~S VIII. ADJC)C~IZNMENT Cit}~ c~l~Ce~-ttral i'c~i~1t Plttc~~~i~-t~ C'omt~~issic~t~ ~ l /7I?000 I. MEETING CALLED `I'O ()RD[{,Ii AT '7.00 I'.M. II. R©LL CALL: Chuck l'ila~xcl, Candy ltisl~, .loh~1 l,eGros, Paul l..utZlc: a~u1 Don Foster were present. l~aroly~le .lollztson a1~d Vd4t}~tlc Rugs wcz-e: absent. Also in atte~ldance were `1"ont I-itt~~tzpl~rey, P1at~t~itlg, Director; Kez~ Cserscl~ler, Co~1~~~~u~~ity 1'Ian~~er, at~c3 Matt Satnitc~re, Platlz~iza~.~ Technician. III. C(7~RItESPONDENCE There was no correspondence. IV. MINUTES Commissioner LeGros made a motion. to approve the t~tinutes from the October, 3, 20x0 meeting as presented. Commissioner Fish seconded the motion.. ROLL CALL: Fish, yes; LeCrros, yes; and Foster, yes. Comtxtissioner Lunte abstained. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES There were no public appearances. VI. BUSINESS A. Public meetin to review a re nest b a develo er to moth the on final conditions of a royal for the Cedar Shadows Planned Unit Develo ment. The subdivision is located in the R-3 Residential Multi le Famil torte district on Ma 3~2W11A Tax Lot 301. Ken Gerscltler, Community Planner, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. 1n 1999, the Cedar Shadows Final development plan was approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant, Dallas Page, is requesting that the setbacks be rnodilted so that he can move the liveable areas of tire units into the front and side setback areas. This will be done for primarily aesthetic purposes so that all the structures don't look exactly alike. The front setbacks would be a minimum of 13 feet in the liveable areas only, and three feet on tl7e side setbacks. The applicant, Dallas Page, stated the reason for the setback request is to hake the development look better. `i'l~e garage would still have a setback of 20 feet. Co~~tmissioner l,unte stated he was concer-~ted ~vitlz tl~e side setback area being so small. Commissioz~er~ Dish ~~~adc; a recoz~~n~crtclatiot~ that the fcnc:es on the side v~trd. start at tl~e rear sicictG~tlk is at ~~radc:. -I~ftc I'acilic: I'o~~~cr I;zscnzc~lt sl~ok~ld only he t~7 ~~ point ~vhcrc tlzc utilities service: the bzli]clic~;~ and nc~t to the westerly pr~~pcc~ty li~lc. -I'lzes•c arc approlinzatelz• ? eczlp]oyccs during peak hours. tzr~d (~ to 8 during no~1-I}eak. "1'hcy ~.voulcl alst~ like to re:]ocate; the sign to the Nortlz~~~est coz~nc~• of'the lot. Daniel Park, 6I 8C Shady Brook l~z•ive:, Central I'oit~t, represented the property o~v~tcrs to t]zc North. I-le stated the sigrt could be a pz•oble~~~ at CS 1-eet iz~ lacight because: of the Ic}cation oI'tlie:iz' hotel project. I`-Ie also asked who was z•espo~ISible Iar the z~tility stizl~-c~rzts to tl~e Nc~rtl3 foz• their project. i-le agreed that tlxe PUE should only be contittucd far e;nozzgl~ to scz•ve both l~ropertics. Mr. Hovet stated Mr. Dark should contact LTM, because they az•e the contractors doing the stub- outs and buildiz•z~; the cul-de-sac. I-le would like to be able tc~ work with staffto make sure the signs don't conflict and that they don't block one another. Commissioner Fish made a oration to adopt Resolution Number 504, approving tl~e Site Plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval, and that tl~e trash receptacle be moved as far east as possible, the PUE on the north property line only go as far as needed to service the building, and that the sign be moved to the Northwest corner of the property. Commissioner Foster seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously. D. Public meeting to review a_Site Plan at~r~lication that would allow the construction of a 109 room motel azzd 4 000 s care foot restaurant near the intersection. of South Pezain per Road and LaRue Drive, The sub'ect ro ert T is located in the C-4 Tourist and ©ffzce Professional District on Jackson Count ~.ssessment Plat 372W02D Tax Lots 2600 2700 and 2800. Tom Humphrey, presented the Planning Department Staff Report. The Planning Departzxzent has had meetings with Jackson County Roads and the C}regon Department of Transportation, to look at the problems associated with this project and the intersection of E. Pine Street and S. Peninger Road. Both OD{JT and Jackson County have asked for a continuation of the proposal to the next scheduled meeting so that they will have more time to evaluate the project and make recommendations on how to fix the intersection. The Planning Department supports the reeluest for a continuation. The ~pplieant, Dan Park, stated that there wez•e some problems obtaining the correct maps for the project to the South and he recently got the drawings and compared them to his project. This made him have to move the Izotel. Mr. Park displayed on the overhead projector the new drawing in relation to the other projects. l--le asked the Comrnissioz~ if they could allow a Conditional Permit on the Site so that the financial backers could be assured the project will go forward, and so they could do gz•oundwork before tl~ze wet weather staz-ts. Philip Tannenl~olz, o~~e ofthe financial backers oftl~e project, stated the Cozrzmission should give a conditional approval on the site, and they would agree to any i~73provezraents the State, County, oz' City applies on the:n~. Cdr, to compromise and come back in two ~vee:ks for revic~~J. i~1~~. E It~ttZpi~r~y. statcri tills ~rt~ttlcl nt~t he c~~t}u;~h ti~aze tt~ ~~irt szll tltt: i~alrtics tc~{.~ctizcr. ;z~zci ire ~~c~€zlci rccc~€zn~~t:zzcleci cta~lti:uutz~, tlz~ itccza tt7 tic ~ze~t scl3~:cit~icd €zzc:cti~~~. "I`lze C:cacz~cz~issic~t~ ~z~acit: assurailcc:s tt~ tlzc ~z~i~[ic:ar~ts that tizc;y ~vc~uici rc:vi~tiv the ~zi~i~licatit~t~ Ott ti~~; 11(:Xt IIIt'.~tll1~,~. Commissioner L~rnte made a ttaotion fo cozztizr~~e the review of ttre Site l'Ia~~ to fire next scheduled meeting. C01I1miSSi(}ner liisi~ seeonclecl tl~e motion. l2t)LL C~AI~I~; Motio~t passed unanimously. VII MISCELLANEOUS Mr. Hun~pl~re}- rez~~iz~ded tlae Comznissicatt abczut tl~e.~c~iz~t t~~tretiz~I; witi-z tl~e City Ct~ztz~cii o~2 Nc~vezrzber 8, 2{300 to z•eview tine z~~astcr I~la~~ ft~r tine traz3sit czriez~ted tleve]opz~~ezzt i~rt~ject. VIII ADJOURNMENT Commissioner Lunte made a motion to adjourn tl~e meeting. Com~z~issioner Faster seconded the motion. RDLL CALL: Motion passed unanimously, Meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM. I'I1ANNi[NG 'i)EPAIZTMEN`I' S`I'Al{C' 12E1'(J'iZ"l' I-IIARINCi I~A`l`l: l:)ccer~rber 5, 2000 T{J: Central Point Planning Cor~~r~3issiorl FRC}M: Tom Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Continued Review of Site Plan for l~.astsicle Motel and Restaurant l~eveloptxtent Background C.~n November 7, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed a site plan for the eastside motel and restaurant referenced above {see Attachment ~-) but postponed a decision and continued the public hearing at the request of C}DOT and .lackson County Roads and Parks {refer to Commission minutes dated November 7, 2000}. City staff concurred with this decision in order to allow more time to determine what, if any, short term improvements could be proposed, evaluated and recommended to maintain efficient levels of service at the East Pine/Peninger Road intersection ifthe motel and restaurant are approved and constructed. Discussion The applicants have retained the Transportation Consulting firm of .TRf-f to prepare a revised geometric design for the East PinelPeninger Road intersection and perform a supplemental analysis to determine whether various changes to traffic flow will result in improved levels of service and buy more capacity that will benefit their development. The specific improvements that are being contemplated are listed in Attachment C. The consultants may have preliminary results from their analysis by the time of the public hearing. However this is not guaranteed. City staff is taking steps to come up with reasonable solutions to mitigate the existing traffic congestion in this area but it will not be a quick fix. We hope to be able to recommend on and off site improvements that the applicant can implement to make his project successf~zl, More current information should be available at the meeting. Recommendation Staf~'recommends that the Planning Commission take one ofthe following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. , approving the site plan subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Continue the review of the site plan until satisfactory conditions can be recommended by staff: Attachments A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 7, 2000 E3. Planning Corrrmission Minutes da€ed November 7, 2000 {rcfc~r t« agenda item) C. l~mail frt7r71 `l'om liumpl~rcy to Janis Castro, JRl-i Traffic f;ngincers ciatc:d Nc>vembcr 3£}, 2()(7{) PLANNING DEPAR`T'MENT STAFI< RFP4R`i" 1-1EARING DATE: Novert~ber 7, 200(3 TQ: Central Point Planning Corrrn~ission FRCTM: l~.en Gerschler, Community Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing- Site Plan Review for 37 2~N 02D, Tax Lots 2600, 2700 and 2$00 - Eastside Motel and Restaurant Development Owners Agent Pro ec Description) Za. z~n~: Summary Vtrilliam C. Cornitius and Dorothy B. Cornitius $ River Road Sun River, Oregon 47707 Daniel L. Park Daniel Park and Associates Architects 61$0 Shady Brook Drive Central Paint, Qregon 97502 37 2W 02D, Tax Lots 2600, 2700 and 2$00 - 2.77 acres total. Cw4, Tourist and Office Professional District The applicants have requested a Site Plan Review for the construction of a 109 unit motel and 4000 square foot restaurant. The subject property is located in an C-4, Tourist and Professional zoning district on Tax Lots 2600, 270{} and 2$00 ofPlat 37 ZV~I OZD. The City has received requests from O.D.U.T. and Jackson County that this item be continued in order to work out the tr~afzc circulation and site access issues. Authority CPMC 1.24.050 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on any application for a Site Plan. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.060 (Attachment "A"). Applicable Law• CPMC 17.44.010 et seq. - C-4, Tourist and QfEce Professional District CPMC 17.64.010 et seq. - ~Jff Street Parking and Loading CPMC 17.72.010 et seq. -Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plan Approval r ~ ~= " ~ ~ Discussion• The applicant Daniel Park is working on behalf of property owners William and Betty Cornitius to develop a 149 roam 4 stony motel near the intersection of South Peninger Road and I.~azue Drive(Attachment "B"). According to the attached letter of description (Attachment "C"~ the fact print of the structure is 12,445 square feet with the total square footage of approximately 42,444 square feet. An indoor swimming pool has been proposed in conjunction with a breakfast lounge, two conference roams, laundry facilities and an exercise roam. Near the northwest corner of the parcel, the applicants propose to construct a 4,444 square foot restaurant. No elevation details have been provided far fine restaurant as it is in the conceptual stage. Primary ingress access will occur on an consolidated ent~~ance offP;ast Pine Street where traffic will be routed to the Motel. The specifics of this have not been worked out with the State or the County. Egress would occur via LaRue Drive and Peninger Road where traffic will be conveyed through a signalized intersection. Mr. Tim Havet of Sycan B Development has been working with the City to develop a motel facility on the parcel to the south. He has submitted a letter for consideration {Attachment "D") by the Canunissian recommending that the traffzc pattern be modified along East Pine Street as the proposed driveway access could present a hazard to motorists due to the proximity to the Interstate Five Interchange. The Planning Department has evaluated the project density and building distance requirements for the zoning district and determined that the development is compliant with the zoning ordinance, The Municipal Code requires not less than one space per guest unit; plus one space per each two employees. One hundred and seventy two { 1'~2}spaces have been proposed, ~ of which are handicap. The code also requires one ioading/unloading berth which has been depicted near the westerly property line on the attached site plan, The exterior is proposed to be constructed with an EIFS exterior finish similar to stucco. The elevations Attachment "E"} depict that the building surface will have accent painting but does not identify the color scheme. Roofing will be metal material of an undisclosed color. The structure will have wall mounted signs an the building exterior in addition to shared pole mounted signage for the motel and restaurant. The Central Point Building Department will require separate building permits far the signage. A landscaping plan has been incorporated into the site plan with a shrub list which includes Anthony Waterer Spirea, Otto Luyken Laurel, Davidii Viburnum and Compact Oregon Grape. Proposed trees are Raywaad Ash, Moraine Haney Locust and Silver Maple. An irrigation system with an approved backflaw device will be required to assure that the landscaping will remain healthy. ~. Q The Public ~Jorks Department has prepared recommendations for on and off site improvements which are believed to be reasonably related to the proposed development. These include, but are not limited to; driveway aprons, sidewalk improvements; site grading and drainage; on-site lighting; paving and utility (water, sewer and storm drain }connections. Jackson County Roads and Parks has requested that the applicant submit construction drawings to their agency for review and obtain County road approach permits for l~:ast Pine Street (Attachment "F" }.The County has also recommended that the paved approach be shared with the Chevron station and be restricted to right in and right out traffic movements. Pacific Power (Electrical Service Provider} has requested that the Planning Commission consider a condition ofapproval that would establish a I S foot wide Public Utility easement along all property boundaries { Attachment "F" ) Jackson County Fire District Number 3 has submitted comments that relate to the project ( Attachment "F" ). They would Izke to review a set of blueprints and plot plat from the applicant that shows general information, on-site water storage anchor hydrant location. Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority has indicated that the property can be served with sewer service from an ~ inch diameter sewer main located along the easterly boundary of the subject property. {Attachment "F "}. The agency will require that the developer determine the pipe capacity to determine that the line will meet the demand. The agency further will require that connection fees be collected prior to issuance of building permits. Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law: Site Plan Review In approving, conditionally approving or denying the plans submitted, the City bases it's decision on the following standards from Section l 7.72.044: A. Landscaping anal fencing and the construction of walls on the site in such a manner as to cause the same to not substantially interfere with the landscaping scheme of the neighborhood, and in such a manner to use the same to screen such activities and sights as might be heterogeneous to existing neighborhood uses, The Commission may require the maintenance of existing plants or the installation of new ones for purposes of screening adjoining property. ^ The site plan shows landscaped areas distributed throughor#t the project area. B. Design, number and location of ingress anal egress points so as to improve and to avoid interference with the traffic flow on public streets; #11P#annFn~t{}(}04 ti wpd ,t .~ ~ LJ 2. Deny the proposed Site Plan; or 3. Continue the review of the Site P1az~ at t~~e ciiscretioz~ of the ~"oznnzissiozz. A#tachments A. Notice of Public Hearin B. Site Plan with. Incorporated Landscape flan C. Letter of Project Description D, Letter from Mr. Tim Hovet E. Structure Elevations F. Correspondence G. Planning Department Recommended Conditions of Approval H. Public Works Staff Report F{ 1P[anningi(}0{74G vr~sd 1 ~ 4~ ~i~fr~1t..~t.,,j t! `I`c~i~z IlurYal~k~rey, Akt;P Pl~~nning I)is-ector Ken ~ersck~ke:r Cornrnunity }'kannc~r Matt Samitare Planning Teck~nician Nance of Meeting Date of Nance; ~}ctobcr i.9 , 2a44 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE 4F MEETING November 7, 2~fl0 ~;~4 p.m. {Approximate) Central Point Caty Hall 1 S5 South Second Street Central Point, (Jregon Beginning at the above bane and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review site plan applications that would allow the construction of two motels near the intersection of Larne and South Peninger Roads on Jacl~son County Assessment Plat 372WO~D, Tax Lots, 2t}00, 27(lC}, 28E1~ and X9(}0 in the C-4, Tourist anal Office-Professional District. {Application 00045-SPA Marion Fairfield Inns and Suites has proposed a three story facility with 68 rooaxas for guests, (Application (J0046) Daniel Park and Associates has proposed a three story facility with 109 guest rooms and a separate 4,0{}0 square foot restaurant. At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications to determine that all applicable provisions of the Central Point Municipal Code can be met. CRITERIA FC3R DECISIQN The requirements for Site Plan Review are set Earth in Chapter 17 of the Central faint Municipal Code, relating to General Pegulations, Cff street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Flans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City`s Public 't~Vorks Standards. ~~ PUBLIC C(~MMII~TS 1. Any persozz interested in cotnmezaEing ozz tlzc abt~ve-zzzentioned land use recorzzzzzerzdatiozz nzay submit written coczzznents up until size close oftlze zzzeetizzg scheduled f`or'1'tzesclay, Novezzzlr 7, 20t}4. ~. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City ~-Tall, I55 South Second Street, Central Point, tJR 9`7542. 3. Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period noted above. Any testimony and written comments about the decisions described above will need to be related to the proposal and should be stated clearly to the Planning Commission, 4. Copies of these applications are available for public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Point, C?regon. Copies of the same are available at 25 cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at {S41) 664- 3321 ext. 291. SI:IZ't~MAI2Y ©F PRtJCEUL~2E At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staffreports, read testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the applications. Any written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Conzzrzission may make a recommendation to the City Council. ,4 s..~. ,,..::~~:_.r. Y....'r~ 5M1A . ~r+i`i'i - ~}~' "r `.x'71 ~i. ~T?~. r ~ A~' " ,i~~:~. ~ .._ :fir .~ .;' ~'vi :{..' a-~ ~-~• ~1 t Y ~ ~ 5' ~ ' . ~ 14 ~. ~ ~ ~t '- F' F. t: 155 ~c~~~t ~ .'ct~«~7c1 ~itrcct • C.:c~zir~~l ]'taint, t)1~ ~~75(}2 ! {541 ~ t}li{t~332 ] ! ~~~~x: f 5~ I } ti<i~~-t">3~itt tl ~t sa i .. , . r~ ~ ~ r3 ~ ~~ t _ _ ua a `~ Ua i~ l~« ;- kI 1 } to _ 1 r // ~~ Q_ [2' ~_. Y ~ l -. rC..~i ~ ]~ ~ I . 9; ~~ t `t i U} ~ ~ •- C7 :J '~~` tl~ ~ I C}' . .,~ T ~'~ LL rn~ ~8~5.1~~Vaa~ i --~'~'t ~$4 7C?' 4 20' / S >!~S ~'{ / It[{ n l tt[ ~~( ac•(~ r . ~.. 4. w .ve ur*.~ac q~ .._.... ~~ _W~ ~~ 1 °'~ :~ - r ~~ s "{~ .~ ~ ~ ab „~„~„~~ t - 4 ~,.1 t asw~eson rwrtetr ~ ~,.. ««. ~ a ``~-. w...xi - {~} S ~} ~ ~_ r -~ ry-~'z . ~ o ##.i ~ r"} d~~ . ~+6 X rraaf~e . ~x sw.w n r..~.n ........ --:..~ i -- I"i~ ...~.~ _v._..-----:.. `.~ «~. a.. ,.. ~ x Q ro ~~ r: :. ........ ........ F. :rtr~>~ ... - :~ E:- '~ :. .n.. .. ~ .. r. ~ s ~ " ~" ..._.._ .. --~° -- .n ,. ,, a ...... .,'s~' .# daniel park & Associates ARCHIT~~TS 6l ${I Shady Brook Drive Central Point, CJR 97542 September 29, 2000 City of Central Paint Planning Department l55 South Second Street Central Paint, t7R 97502 Subject: Site Pian Review Application Hotel and Restaurant Development 37S 2W S2 Tax lots 2600, 270{l, 2800 The proposed development is an exciting addition to the City of Central Point and will be complimentary to the current adjacent development. It will be one of the largest Hotels in €he Rogue Valley offering a selection of moderately priced rooms and roomy Suites. It will be located at the Rogue Valley's Gateway - Central Point, for those traveling from the North and positioned at the cross-roads to the Medford International Airport, the Jackson County Fairgrounds, the LDS Temple, Historic Jacksonville and the Britt Gardens. The development is proposed as follows: • 2.77 acre nicely landscaped and irrigated site with a consolidated entrance off Cast Pine Street, with ingress and egress access to Larue. The existing freeway signage pylon will be utilized by both proposed facilities. The Hotel and restaurant also have building mounted illuminated signage. A portion of the Hotel Roof is planned to extend to an elevation of approximately 70` for which a variance is being applied for. • 42,000 sq. ft. four story Hotel consisting of I09 roams, indoor gaol, breakfast lounge, two conference rooms, laundry and exercise room. • Approximately 4000 sq. ft. fine dining family restaurant (separate facility) on the same development. = Paved parking for approximately 172 cars with required accessible spaces. All the required facilities for access, trash collection, site lighting, fire protection and maintenance will be incorporated into the site design. Thank you, Daniel Park Principal Architect ce C:~rtyFiles~MyFiles12414 site plan appl.wpd ~_. i~ ~= ~7'?~~tW'+~'~" rat Sycarc B f54I ~ 746-8444 = .~`ax f~41,] 746-259a 34U5Baldy thew Lane Springfield, OR 97477 S yca C}ctober ~~, ~~~}~ City of Central Point Planning Commission C/o Planning Department 155 S. Second Central Point, dR 97502 RE: Site Review application 00046, 1.09 unit hotel/4,000 square foot restaurant Dear Commissioner, As you may know, Sycan has made site review application fora 68 unit Fairfield Inn and Suites on a parcel adjacent to and south of the above referenced development, We believe that the above referenced application confirms our belief in both the short term and long term value of quality development in Central Point. From review of the materials in SP. Application 00(346, it certainly appears that the proposed 1.09 unit hotel and the 4,000 square foot restaurant would be a positive addition to the specific neighborhood and to the City of Central Point. I would like to address one area of concern with the development, specifically the proposed access from and to East Pine. Tyre access as shown is extremely close to the exit ramp from IwS. In addition, many vehicles leaving the site, either from the restaurant or the hotel, would need to make a left turn movement against both east and west bound traffic. From my research, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers Manual 6~' Edition, the restaurant would generate 130.39 daily trips per 1,004 square feet of floor area for a total of 522 daily trips during the weekday, with weekend trips being even higher. The proposed hotel would generate 5.63 daily trips per room on weekdays (9.11 per occupied room} for a total of 614 daily trips. The proposed development would generate a combined 1.,136 daily trips. Assuming half of these trips are exiting and the vast majority would be making the left turn across traffic movement, this would be almost 568 vehicles per day using the proposed East Pine exit driveway. The concern is that this volume of traffic would have an overall negative effect given the already high traffic level at this intersection: safety would be jeopardized, congestion greatly ~. i ~y. %.~.:, Increased, and travelers would begin to avoid the area altogether. Even aright- in only access off of East Pine would aggravate both safety and congestion since the traffic exiting ~-~ east bound would have such a short decision time on either merging to the left through lane or stacking up behind the rightWin traffic. The proposed development has frontage on I~aRue to the south. This access would be much safer and efficient. Access to the site would be all right turns and vehicles leaving the development would have a traffic signal controlled left turn onto East Pine. Requiring that traffic solely use LaRue for both Ingress and egress would insure the continued viability of the intersection, decrease congestion, and increase traffic safety on East Pine. In summary, we are pleased to see this development proposal as a confirmation of the desirability of the area. However, we would ask that serious consideration be given to requiring access only from LaRue to the south with no Ingress or egress from or to East Pine. Cc: Ken Gerschler, Community Planner, City of Central Point ~ ~` Vice President Real Estate Development ti, . f( \t ~~r4GN~Y7~=r~ ~"_ ~ ~, rn ~~ ~p -i ~~ ~~ t ~~'~t~ rn r { ~~ §° C c i ti !' i ! 5 a~s }~ ~ 1~ 1 MCl`I"EL PRC},T~ECT ~,v~~"r $~f'~;, 8c A.saoCita.te8 { E f'4J it m ~S; blb0 Broak IHiwe F (~~`~{+~•~p ,{ { ('~{~,~T ~. ~~ 1"'k~' [woFra~F~P t i, (Irtten 9Ti02 F € t i_. L.IY f ltt'1L ~4J t1Y ! C~i~i•ly~~ Ta4episau f5t]}!bi SK:A ~ i fu: SSAf}A.b1~5'~4 } 3 ... ! N ~~x •~x :~ Ra __ _ ___ ~ M_ ~~-. _. .._.._. _ rE T ti y~= '7 ~„} M 4'ii 4 Q7 i_ Y s ~ . ~ ~~ s M- y~•Recr,~~, Daniel Park ' ,~ MOTEL PROTECT `,~ ~ ~ &A.~eoczafea ~ k ~~so ~~ ~.~ ~ CEtvFTRAI. F'C3INT ~dN•I191~~ r.~«Q~„e. tssi)ba+sasa ~1~Tt~ ~ ~f vr~~-~7 r JACKSON COUNTY Rands ©ctc~ber 17, ~flg0 Attention: Tom 1-1urnp~irey City of Centro[ Point Planning '~ ~~ ~Utrtll~~^ eCOnd Street Central Paint, Cl~ 97502 RE: peveiopment oft East Pine Street - a county maintained rand. Planning File fl0046-SPR; Hotel and Restaurant. Dear Mr. Humphrey: t}/iil:f °l'tttt eu,~t~ C;<ry G#+ce t~tecsiartl r;>~7ca 2t).1MIBE{7SS01}QI3{S SV $.0~}c~+FOAVL,YXW wnno c~Ey, or~~,u, s7scsa trrararo. are{ran ~rso1 T~ax'!5~t1}7T~F li2V5 Fax:{541}774.15791 £yr'f tuE: Yirehi:I(.,jnc#c34r'U.UKy.Or*a Phone';~as)77s.G2^,6 Thank you for the opportunity to comment an #his application far a Hotel and Restaurant to be located an the south side of mast Pine Street, adjacent to the easterly side of the [-~ Interchange. Roads and Parks Services has the following ccmrnerTts: 1. The applicant shall submit construction drawings to Jackson County Roads and. Parks Services and obtain County permits if required. 2. The applicant shat[ obtain road approach permits from Roads and Parks Services for road approaches to East Pine Street, We recommend the paved approach be shared with the Chevron statiart to the East and be restricted to right in, right out movements, ~. Jackson County Roads and Parks Services would like #o review and comment on the hydraulic report inciudir~g the calculations and drainage plan. Capacity [mprovernents or on site de#erttian, if necessary, shall be installed at tl~e expense of the applican#. if you have any questions or need further information feel free tp cal[ me at T74-5230 Slncere[y, ~r Eric I~liemeyer, PE Traffic & development Engineer i'.Ff+~~^ry~3r:nt71E~e3v,sl[7i7rn t~:4t?CI'I~Ic S1G}'IS F?I }'?19!7'78 C,-;>Wir irtu7 t3t,-Aft t~'FIE~K GNktPJ:N.hY t FidGtf~lGEF--"lftra t l~t.f~l~T `r1AttAE f-~t7^tIT t f~tQTt7/7 t'ODt. t f'AkY;S 1 f?)AD fL9tlit/TFIJI1tlF. F- r vs t: F: l~p lfr7rJ lhlSN9C>f-"ttiYtdl i7d-G?.7t TI3~#F~=I Ttd-NTtF4 77d 7~J~„ %!~ NtRt ,°~S"'7tr}t ..: ("3 "'77 j ~~ ' ~ , Aficdfc~rzf, t7re~vorr 975(11, (5411858.30J~ ` "f PACIFIC POWER A Pacifr'Corp Company Ken Gerschler Corrtmtznity Planner 155 S. Second St. Central Point ,aR 97502 Dear Ken: October 24, Z(#CIO Reference: Pl'&L W.CJ.~# 00046 Thank You again for sending us the preliminary site plan for the new Eastside Hotel project, ale #00046-SPR. After reviewing~the plans Pacific Power would like a I S' P.U.E. along the entire exterior of the project within the property line, Thank you far your consideration. Sincer~ely,~/ Mike Hale Pacific Power & Light ~~ ,:. . FIRE DISTRICT No. 3 JACKSON COLLNTY 8333 AGATE RDAC7, wF{I"1"~ CTTY, oR~GC?N 97'SC73-~D75 ~s~~~ szs-71oo Fax (s~1~ sz~~s~~ ~vw jcfd3.com C~ctC3ber 5, 24at~ Ken Gershler City of Central Point RE: Eastside Hotel The Building Department and Fire District #3 will require a set of blue prints from the applicant far review. The plans shalt include a plot plan showing placement of building, main access roads a»d driveways. Fire District #3 will apply all Uniform Fire Code requirements, which may include on-site water storage and jor hydrants f©r f re protecti©n, and road access prior to co»strucfion. If you have any questions, Please call me at (5~-I) 82b-71Qt~ Don Hickman Deputy Fire Marshal ~~ i:~ ~~. -~ BEAR ~~E~K VA~LFY ~AH1~`Y'ARY AUTHC)~.ITY- sees sotnff t~wc~~=~c »wv. • ~sear~o~en, o~t~~at~ A7sot-sogff • {tsar} ss~-st~a • {use} r7s-a~as r~~x {rz.~e} aas.sx~s • www.bcvs.,ory Octol~ex S, 200 l~.en Gerschler City of Central Point Planning Department 155 South Second Street Central Paint, Oxegon 9~Sf}~ Re: Daniel Park Hotel and Resta~rrant Site Plan, File # OOQ46 Deax i~en, Thexe is an 8 inch diameter sewex main located along the Easterly boundary of the subject property. This main was constructed prior to BCVSA's involvement with the Central Point collection system and we do not have accurate as-built information and cannot make a determination of the capacity of this line. Before allowing connection to this line, $CVSA will require that the developer measure the elevation of this line to determine the pipe capacity. If suff cient capacity is not available, the developer will be requixed to extend sewer service from the existing 42" main along the Southexly boundazy of the pxoperty. BCVSA will also require that an exclusive easement be granted over this existing pipe. The easement must be a minimum of 15 feet wide. Priox to making any connections to the sewer system, the developer must obtain a pexmit from BCVSA and pay all necessary connection fees. If you need additional information, please call me at ~~'9-4144. Sin~cer~ely, Carl Tappert, P.E. District Engineer [:~DATAIAgcnciestCEI~TI'T1PI.,1~I~NG1fl{}~146-i'ark I-tc~tel.wpd ~~ ~l'I~"I"~.C:YIIMLN'1' (: Rl~caMlv~l~lvUr~~ rL~Nl~l~lvc; c~Nr~~TZal~s or nP~~~vv~~.1 The approval of the Site Plan shall expire in one year on l~ecen~bcr 5, 2~l(}1 unless an application for a building permit or an application for extension leas been received by the City. The applicant shall submit a revised site plan depicting any changes discussed and approved at the public hearing within 3f~ days of Planning Co~~nznission approval. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations . 3. The project must meet the off street parking requirerrzents for motel development, and the parking, access and maneuvering areas shall be paved with durable materials for all-weather use and approved by the Public Works Departs~nent. ~, .. ., I< t ~ ~7T~tttNt~tvt' f-~ CITY CAF CENTRAL PC.~INT D~PAF~TMEIV T OF PUBLIC WQRK"S AMENDED PRE~(MINARY STAFF REP{~RT for NotellRestaurant PW#~C}(34~ Date: Applicant: Agent: Project: Location: Legal; Zoning; Units: Plans: Repart By. Purpose November 22, 2000 Phil Tannenholz Daniel L. Park NotellRestaurant at E. Pine St. and Larne Dr. A.K.A. "East Side Hotel" West of Penninger Rd between E. Pine and Larne Rd. T37S, R2W, Section 2, Tax Lots 2600, 2700, 2800 C-4 Hotel -109 units Restaurant - 4,000 square feet 3 pages dated 9/29!00, titled "HOTEL PROJECT FOR CENTRAL POINT" Robert W. Pierce, Public Works Interim Director Provide information to the Planning Commission and Applicant {hereinafter referred to as "Developer" regarding Public Works standards and additional standards and requirements to be included in the design. Gather information from the Developer/Engineer regarding proposed development. The Developer is proposing the construction of a 109 unit hotel and a 4,000 square foot un-attached restaurant in two phases. The first phase, to be completed as soon as practicable, will include the hots( and associated necessary improvements. The second phase, to be completed at an undetermined future date, will include the restaurant and associated necessary improvements. It is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that the hots[ and restaurant be reviewed separately with separate staff reports being generated for each. Therefore, this staff report is for the hotel and will reference the restaurant only as it pertains to the hotel. The restaurant staff report will be generated prior to its construction. Special Requirements 1. Larne thrive Im rovements: The Developer shat( provide the City with sufficient right of way to accommodate the construction of Larne Rd to the limits established by the Public Works Department. All improvements on and connections to Larne Drive shall be coordinated and approved the City PWD, and should be designed and implemented at the expense of the Developer. Construction drawing improvements shall include or delineate sight triangles, sidewalks, and all other public improvements. Tie-ins to the existing city infrastructure must be permitted and approved by City PWD Pii'(~ StufJ-RePort November 21. 2t1t?(l Page 2 The driveway into the proposed development from L.arue Rd. should be designed and posi#ioned in a manner #hat will accommodate the turning movements and access of emergency vehicles. I# is the Public Wanks Department's recommendation that the hotel building permit not be issued until the improvements to I-arau Rd are completed to the satisfaction of tl3e Public Works Department. 2. E. Pine Street Improvemenfs: All improvements on and connections to F. Pine Street shall be coordinated with and approved by the City PWD, and should be designed and implemented at the expense of the Developer. Tie-ins #o the existing city infrastructure must be permitted and approved by City PWD. Because of the complexity of issues associated with ingress and egress to the proposed restaurant location from E. Pine Street, it is the recommendation of the Public Works Department that E. Pine Street Improvemen#s be deferred until construction of the restaurant. 3. Water: The developer shall design and ins#all an 8-inch water line connecting the existing 12-inch water line on E. Pine Street with the exis#ing 8-inch water line on Larne Rd. Water service connections shall connect to the proposed 8-inch water line. Fire hydrant placement will be determined by Fire District ~ The Developer shall provide the City with a '15-foot exclusive water line easement to be 5-feet on one side of the water line and ~ ~-feet on the o#her. 3. Site Drainage/Sform Drain Plan: The developer shall design and implement a site drainage/storm drain plan that corrects andlor enhances existing site drainage far the entire area noted on the site plan. If the storm drainage infrastructure is to be privately operated and maintained, a suitable system will need to be designed for a minimum 1Q-year storm event. If applicable, any storm water retention facilities shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition; and to mitigate the "attractive nuisance" hazards associated with these facilities. 4. Existin Infrasfrucfure: The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification and justification {i.e. calculations, analyses, plots, etc.,} that all connections to existing infrastructure (i.e. street; drive-thru ~~ que€.ring; water. sanity€y sewer. storm drain systerl~s, natural dry€nage systera~s, etc..} w€Il not interfere with or provide for the s€gnificant degradation (in the opinion of the City of Central Point} of the existing effective level o€ service or operation of the infrastructr€re facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed development's infrastructure; or the existing facilities will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of service of the affected facility. ~. E'xisfing Sfrucfure: An existing, former gas station is located on tax lot 2800. The Developer shall remove all existing underground storage tanks from the property prior to final acceptance of the Ho#el by the City. The Public Works Department recommends that the structure at the former gas station site, along with all associated infrastructure and miscellaneous concrete, sign posts, and brick work be removed and replaced with suitable landscaping prior to final acceptance of the Hotei by the City. Genera[ DeveloAment Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval, plans and specifications for all improvements proposed for construction or modifications within the Gity or publ'€c rights-of- wayand easements or for connections to Gity infrastructure. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets {including sidewalks, curbs and gutters ); storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance systems; water distribution system {up to the service meter}; street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. Ali construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved anti stipulated by the Planning Gornmission, and other special specifications, details, standards, grad/or upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to installation. 2. Approvals: If applicable, Fire District No. 3 {fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access}, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {BGVSA, for sanitary sewers}, and written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final construction plan review and approval by City PWD. ~~ c~ ~~ East srde ffotcf 1' {S'j7 ,Staff Re f~c~rt November 2l. Zt7t1tT Page 5 Easements for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not Just a public utilities easement {PUE}. Centerline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum of five {5} feet from the edge of the easement. PUEs must have a minimum 10-foot width. 11. Clear Vision Areas: The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas (i.e. sight triangles} designed to meet the City's PWD requirements. 12. Fire Hydrants: Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. All fire hydrants shall be suitably protected from potential vehicle damage and encroachment. 14. Water System: 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. 16. Storm Drain System Ctesicrn: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this development plan, the Developer's engineer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and profile plots for sizing the site storm drain system. The engineer shall use the rainfallrntensity curve obtained €rom the City PWD for hydrologic calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters. 18, Grading Plants; Construction plans should have a suitable grading plan. Grading plans should have original/existing grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid. Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. 19. Erasion Control Plan: Construction plans shall have a suitable Erosion Control Plan. ~~ ~:ust sole' ffntet f'F4'f) ~itn~J'fZeport Noi=ember 22, 2C1(J~ f'cz~e ~ 3. As-Built lrawings: Prior to approval and acceptance of the projec#, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with "as-built" drawings. If feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form {produced on Mylar~'} and in a "digital" format compatible with AutoCAD~', or other form as approved by the Gity PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line" changes to fiinal approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations {as appropriate) of actual installed items. 4. Elevatr'ans: 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. ~. Fiil P/acemenf: All fill placed in the road right of way shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD ~. Roads: The City shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and review the road section designs at the Developer's expense. Roads should be designed #o handle all expected loads, including fire equipment. 8. Utility Plans: Prior to construction the developer must coordinate, with the City PWD, the placement of proposed utilities to avoid conflicts and insure adequate separation with all infrastructure. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electric power, cable television, natural gas, and telephone. 10. Cr`ty Utility Easements: Easements must be provided for existing City infrastructure {i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain} and any of the City"s infrastructure that is to be installed as part of this development. Easements must be a minimum of ~5-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. ~~ M5N Home Hotn~ai# Web Search Shopping Money People & Chat s ~:i~~ai~t~ msn`s' It's just the car you want, H Q~Ct1 ~ ~ ~ Ithumphrey~7a hotmail, cam fEit~ox Compose Address Book Folders Options Folder: lnbox Messenger Caierniar Hefp From: "Tom Humphrey" '~lthumphrey a~hotmail.corrf> Save-Address To: janiscasto@jrhweb.corn Save. Address CC: lthumphrey a~hotmail.com Save, Address Subject: Re: (no subject} Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 06:56:46 Reply Reply AI! Forward Delete Previous Next Close Janis, 'There are five improvements that were discussed amaung OI70T, Jaeksan County and Central Point City stag. `t'hey are as follows: 1. A dedicated right turn lane south baund onto Peninger Road. T1?e lane would extend from the Z-5 north baund off ramp to Peninger Road. County staff believe that adequate right--af-way exists but this would have to be aanfirmed {particularly in front of the Chevran station}. It is also important to apply the RASHTC} turning radius template to the south west canner of East Pine Street and Peninger Raad to ensure that trucks will be able to move cleanly from the right turn lane south bound ante Peninger. 2. A raised median (similar to that an i^Iighway 62 near Eagle Paint} extending from the Taca Bell drive through lane south to LaRue }rive to discourage trucks Pram queing to enter the Pilot Station fuel islands. 3. An alternative entrance {and corresponding circulation plan} for the Pilot station and foal islands which uses South Peninger and the south end of the Pilot property to bring trucks into the fuel islands Pram the east. 9. A raised median extending Pram the I--5 off ramps east to the Peninger Raad intersection. An argument was made that east bound traffic currently serves as an "artificial median" an East Pine and prevents left turns out of the Chevran station. 5. A reduction in the number of access paints (curb cuts} in (rant of the the Carnitius and Bell properties from faun to two and possibly even one common access. `The Burger King/Chevron mutual access could remain and crass access could be considered among the Carnitius and Bell properties to encourage better interaccess between the Chevran, proposed motel and proposed restaurant. 6. Signal synchronization between Peninger and the I-5 ramps shau3.d also be considered although it was not discussed in the group meeting. The expectation is that JRH will take County and/ar State C;~E7 drawings and prepare a new geometric design far the interchangelintersectian with the above described improvements and then determine whether these .i_mpravemenl~s ~a.i.].3. have a positive effect tC) lF.'.VG'.~.5 of Se: V2Ce C71VeC1 ,:r?« new ~.anc? L:SeS b!'t.r:g ~2C}C}C)S('{~ !r? t:f)nl:':IiEi)ic:'::C..f~ 3.n trle near. tuti~.re_ Pi~,:C7rE.'.Sf rtt=r. _F.V'u,<3 i~C)I(k ~:-1 f, Cam?-':yr ~.f)t_,';1`_ j/ ~,'C?(~ f7 }:~.l~„{:'- :t: '. ~J:-c'sii('..i.i!`; _Ci .s":r._r:: '. 'vl:..:f1 I.~r.!..°rY'r~ ~'}3`C}C)C=:T'F~/ Cl'r!T',nf-ca ;.{j ~-J} r-~ ._, f- z~):~a.' rr,~, c:, .. ..; r.t's:. - .., .., .. .,. r;, r.,~. .~t "lc''. tiJ !~ct~~a~;~`'curn~l~rc~~ 1'(}{)f}{}(}(}{}{}1c~~t---1;:~t}~t}77#7-I ~>fi~~~2r)27<~r~YSv~ tV1~{ic}7~7~>74t)C>.i]c~:5t<] 1~;(}!()t) ~-{ott~~ail l~c~lc~cr: ltzlx~x I'a~c ? cif' ~ Please c:al.i. me. at (~41} 664-3321 ext;. 23(1 .i#: y<>iz t7ave arty ~aa:-t:izcyr c~;at~:;a. i.c~ris. From: Janis Casco <<s;ta.s~.as;oCa ~ r'iativ~=la. c;cai,,> __ To: mom Ftunrphrey {it;_~ur€~phr_~?t~_?3~?_~=_n~~-r:i ].. cc~m: - ....... Subject: {na subject} Date: Fri, 29 Dec 20001 09.0:25 -080(} 1 C}rn r Hake you are having a gaud day. We have been given the ga ahead to wank an the Eastside Hatel for Dan Park. Cauld you jat dawn the 1~aad improvements we talked about, far our use in that study Thaz-ak You Janis Get your FREE do~rnload of MS~I Explorer at ~zttp:l/e~.plorer.nasn.conz Reply Reply All Forward Delete Previous Next Ciose ' ~M~ ue ~"I ~'. (Nave to Selected ~older~ ~> :.~z .. _.._..._. _. ___ . fnbox Compose Address Book Folders Options Messenger Calendar #~efp Get natifed when you have new Flotmai! or when your friends are online, send instant messages, fisten to music and more. Try the new browsing software #ram Microsoft that makes it easy to get more from the Web. Get your FREE download of MSiV Exp[arer at http:ttexplarer.msn.com Qther Links: Special Features: ~~ Buy Music loo ou knows arts? t7ownload Music [.earn a new lanctuaoe ~~~~~ Buy Books t_ooki_~les and games? "` Free ames A must read for those in the knot Pl..,._armacv Find great stocks: 8 steps More... More... © 20£10 Microsoft Corporation. Alf rights reserved. MSN TERMS crF USE and NOTICES TRUSTe Approved Privacy Statement ~~ ./~ctn~s~`?curn~l7tlx=-('(}f}{){}{}{}{)~} 1 &~i-..-135~~5(}~74~-135{~Sf~2~)27~:.r~~s~===MSC~)75Sf~74(l(~.31 cyst 1 1 JC}/(}{) PLANNING I)I~,I'AR`I'ML<"N7' ~i'I`AI<I= IZEI'()It`I' ~ I1:A121NCT DA"l~l?: l~ccc~~~l~cr 5.2444 T©: Cents( Point Planning Cornn~ission FRC3M: Ken Cxerschler, Com:~~.unity Planner SUBJECT: Public I-)caring- Planned Unit Develolnnent and `I~entative Plan for 12.osewood Estates, Phase 2 (372W14C-2944 and 372W14CA-5944, 6404} C?wners .lack and Bonita Busby 3386 Hanley Road Central Point, C3regon 97542 A,~ent Dallas Page 944 Windemar give Ashland, Caregon 97524 Property Description) 372W42C, Tax Lot 2944 and 372W 14CA, Tax Lots 5944 and 6044 _ approximately 5 acres total. Zoning: R-1_g and R-1-14, Residential Single Family District Sumrnarv- The applicant has submitted a development proposal to subdivide three existing fats into 21 residential lots. This proposal is being presented as a planned unit development (PUD~ which permits more development flexibility without the need to apply for variances. Authority; CPMC 1.24.454 vests the Planning Commission with the authority to hold a public hearing and render a decision on preliminary development plans for planned unit development. Notice of the Public Hearing was given in accordance with CPMC 1.24.464 {Attachment "A"}. Applicable Law: CPMC 16.14.414 et seq. -Tentative Plans CPMC 17.24.414 et seq. ~ R-1, Residential Single Family District CPMC 17.64.134 et seq. -General Provisions, Access CPMC 1'7.68.414 et seq. -Planned Unit Development .~ .... Planned Unit Developtxxent; As the Coznmissiar~ is aware the first phase of the Rosewood l~states Subdivision is nearing completion and the applicant Dallas Page is now prepared to begin canstructiora on a second phase. The applicant had a tentative approval for the second phase but acquired az~d annexed additional acreage from surrounding property owners in order to master plan and develop a larger project. The original approval for the second phase would have permitted seven lots with access to 1/Ianley Road via a private roadway named I-Iauston Court. The revised second phase would include several parcels to the south increasing the fatal acreage far the project to five acres creating an additionall4 parcels. There are two existing homes on the project site, one of which will be renovated and retained. In apre-application meeting between the applicant, City staff, Jackson County and several utility service providers, it was determined that the project hest be submitted as a planned unit development {PUD} due to the unique topographical limitations imposed by Jackson Creek which traverses the property and due to the special road classification of Flanley Road . A planned unit development SPUD} is a permitted use in the R-1, Residential Single Family Zoning Distrzct. CPMC 17.68.010 states that the purpose of a planned unit development (PUD} is to gain more effective use of open space, realize the advantages of large-scale site planning and the mix of building types ar land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental protection. This is achieved by allowing a variety of buildings anal structures, types of open. space, variable building heights and setbacks, and shared services and facilities. A PUD can be residential, commercial or industrial in natuz-e. The proposed P1r.TD is a single family residential development that consists of 2l lots ranging in size from 4,761 to 16,965 square feet with varied setbacks for each structure, Minimum setbacks between the structures will be na closer than ten feet. Each home (with the exception of the existing house} is anticipated to have a second scary with a square footage that varies from 2,6{}0 to 4,000 with an anticipated sale price of X265,000 to ~ 50,000. Each dwelling unit will have a two car garage that will have a minimum 20 x 20 interior dimension. The existing renovated Name will also need a two car garage to meet the off street covered parking requirement. Phase I had planned to utilize a lot an the East side of Jackson Creek for the installation of a swimming pool while reserving a larger area an the west side as recreational vehicle parking. The applicant would like to use the area previously designated far the RV parking for the swimming gaol. The existing pedestrian bridge crossing Jackson Creek between the two phases is proposed to be covered. Surrounding uses are residential to the west, north and east with neighborhood commercial activity to the south_ _~ 28 ~l`h~ C"el~tral l'oil~t i~lunicip<~l C'od4 idc~~tifics 5c~~.~era1 s1?ccial sctl~ack rccltaire~~7c~7ts that arc applic<~h]e to this project. Siztce .Jackson C"reek trot°erse:~ the parse], rto structure will be pcrntittcd to c:~lc;roac;li u°it]~€~~ 25 feet ti-on~ the €o~ of l~ac~k. l#anley Road is idc~~tiiict3 as a sc;condary artcri;~l a~~d Ilas 4~ special setback of f~~ Feet as measured #-~•on~ ccs~tc~•lic~e. Accessory buildings will ~~ot be ciblc to be located within the special setbacks. Staff recon~~x~encls that decks and fences be allowed only at the discretion ofthe Building (7f~cial and Public Works l:)i~•ector wl~o would review applications for these structures on an individual basis. It is i~azlaortant that fences and decks along Jackson Creek receive particular attention since these structures could pt}tecatially impede the c•egular flow ofwater in the creek during a flood event. Access to the new development will be from Rosebud Circle {a private road} serving the 21 lots. Lots 7, S, 9,1(} and 13 will gain access to Rosebud Circle via a 30` wide private driveway and hammerhead. A ten Foot wide strip of land had been identified For dedication along the entire length of Hanley Road with Public Utility Easements proposed within the interior roadways. Parking should be limited to one side ofRosebud Circle, preferably along tlxe east side ofthe roadway. The applicant has provided seven additional spaces in a common area that is available for guests. The Planning Department recommends that Rosebud Circle be designated as a one way street with ingress taken from the southerly entrance to the project. A one way street will be much safer for this project since the proposed configuration of the roadway has limited vehicle stacking area on the south intersection. Additionally, the street width is actually smaller than the one previously approved for Griffin Creek Estates {33 foot R.Q.W.} located along Wesfi Pine Street, Jackson County may require the installation of a deceleration lane at the entrance to the project at the expense of the applicant. The Planning Department also recommends that the Commission consider a condition that the water service meters not be installed within the sidewalk. Although Rosebud Circle is a private roadway, it would be in the best interest of future property owners if there were damage to the :meter and repairs were needed. The applicant should be required to submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions {CC&Rs} or any comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of the PUD as part of the final development plan. The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary development plan for compliance with the City's water, sewer, storm drain and transportation standards. The Public Works StaffReport is attached as Exhibit "E>' Jackson County `ire District I'~lumber Three has submitted correspondence for consideration by the Commission (Exhibit "F"} The district recommends that parking be limited to one side ofRosebud Circle and has identified three hydrant locations to the applicant. Criteria f©r Pt~D: ~fhc applicant ]gas prepared clocunlentati«n that <~dclresscs the clevc(opn~cnt schedule #or a 1'IJI~ set -~ ~ forth in Chapter I~.GB af'the: Central Point Municipal Cadc (Attachm~:nt "C""}. Stai`f`has reviewed the development schedule ar~d detern~ine:d that tl~e sta~~darcis fc}r a I'ITi7 can lac nzct f~7r this project subject to tl~e recommended conditions aftlxe Planning l~ep<trtmcnt {Attachn~c:nt "[~"} at~d the Public Narks Department Report {Attachment "L"}. The Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority has indicated that the property can be served { Attachment <tj"!77~ Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law for PLID: A. That the develapment of a harmonious, integrated plan justifies exceptions to the normal requirements of this title; ^ The applicant's preliminary develapment plan proposes single family detached dwellings in the context of a planned community that is consistent with the R-l zoning and compatible with surrounding housing styles. B, The proposal will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and ether applicable policies of the City; ~ This PUl]- ensures adequate housing will be provided and contributes to the variety of housing by providing a niche for homeowners who prefer a standard home with a smaller yard and the convenience of shared open space. C, The location, size, design and operating characteristics ofthe PL7Dwill have minimal adverse impact vn the livability, value ~r appropriate development of the surrounding area; ~ The architecture, size and price of the proposed homes are similar to the first phase of homes constructed in Rosewood Estates. D, That the proponents ofthe PUD have demonstrated that they are financially able to carry out the proposed project, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of the project and any necessary district changes, and intend to complete said construction. with a reasonable time as determined by the Commission; ~ The applicant has indicated that he plans to begin construction on the project within six months and has demonstrated the financial ability to complete the project based upon the previous phase of Rosewood Estates, ~. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable previsions in the plan far proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking; ^ Planning Staff recommends that RoseF~ud Circle lie designated as a one wiry street with `.) f 1 on street parking linaitcd to the easterly sick of the ro:rdav:ry..lacksorr C'c>trnty Rc~atls and Parks Wray retluire acceleration and tlecelcratior7 lanes ftar ingress and egress trr the project. F. That comrnereial development in a 1'LJD is neede;cl at tine proposed Ioc:ation to provide adequate commercial facil€ties of the type proposed; ~ There is no commercial development proposed in l~.asewood Estates. G. That proposed industrial development will be efficient and well-organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck access and necessary storage; ~ There is no industrial development proposed in Rosewood Estates. K. The PUD preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded cover and rough terrain, if these are present; ^ With Jackson Creek traversing the property, dais PUU offers the opportunity to enhance the riparian area while permitting tine development of tine parcel. 1. The PUD will be compatible with. the surrounding area; ^ The Rosewood Estates PUD is compatible with the surrounding area to tlae extent that it maintains a similar single family zoning density and architectural style. 1. The PLTD will reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the land; ~ Private streets and the open space areas will be maintained by the property owner and/or a homeowners association thereby reducing the need for public services provided by the City. Recommendation; The Planning Commission may take one of the following actions in regard to the preliminary developrxrent plan for a planned unit development. l .Adopt Resolution No. ,approving the preliminary development plan for the Rosewood P.states PUD, based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law contained in the record and subject to the recommended conditions of approval as set forth in the staff reports; or 2. Reeommertd denial of the preliminary development plan for the Rosewood Estates l'fl"L~ laased on findings of fact articulated by the Commission. u -- ~~ ~. Cantit~ue the review afthe subject a~l~licatic~t; at the discretion ~~i'tlte Cc~~~~missiacz. Attachments• A. Tentative Plan- Rosewood Estates PUD, Building Elevations B. 1~atice a~' Public Hearing C. Applicant's Findings and Projected Construction Schedule D. Planning Department Recommended Conditions E. Public Warlcs Stag' Report c~ Recommended Conditions F. Correspondence ~~ l--- /'/(f `~.. ~ - t~ `~ xx «..~,~ w..+ w wa.,s. arso+ Cxt S} 7T}-33t3 -V-^'R~~T'~` tv'n6~; lt7RJrt'f iEG p /~ ~y,~y#~.~ r~.~cr~ cvr~nrirr F'4~,./~~~ti../~fi.+~' ~~~~~ThT~T~,~c ~t I 1~'iT1~~ .G T~w IY 1 lt~~ Y f'wbrvary 1, Coco 2'+~bn,cYy Z~S, 2G~A0 Nrx'Gh aS, 20630 +1•t~1 ~Y1i34>rs CctOblr ~Z, Z000 (rfd~ilgn 1'.{}.17,1 3th Rrv3itcxr 3tlwovvwmk»r 3, 3CTf~d t RRR U .R~ .. xRe.~erco Eae .~ .." .ao «...,.aaRn. ...H....r...... 37.i7.fL7 !'llOPllkrl2',T:xr-rr-tou as«w a hRGOd xr-xr-toc nsRO! rariL AJtr4 lOYr aC 3aNIM7: axaa7 - a-x-a RaCw) R 11.NM - a+t. iC rare utnrs: xw c i~aacna ~`` ~ R~ j J.~.--• f~TT~Cfflti`T ~Nf - rt ~3 t4 PLC 11T.11~~N~ 1~~'~-~~ ~~''I'M.~'N`1" '1'or7i Eluirz~Tarey, r1]CP Tlanning I~ircctor T{en GerschTer community T'Tanner Matt, ~a~r~itore I'lannin~ `T'echnician Notice of Meeting Date of Notice: November I5, 2f}~0 Meeting Date. Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING December 5, 2(}00 '7:00 p.zn. {Approximate} Central Paint City I Tall 155 South Second Street Central Paint, C}regan Beginning at the above time and place, ~e Central Paint Planning Commission will review an application far a 21 lot Planned Unit Development in the vicinity of Hanley Road and Beall Lane. The proposed development is located in a R-1-8 and R-i-10, Residential Single-Family zoning district on tax lot 2904 of Jackson County Assessment Plat 3'7 2W 1 OC and Plat 37 2W 1 OCA, tax lots 5900 and 6000. The purpose of the Planned Unit Development (CPMC 17.68.014} is to gain more effective use of open space, realize advantages of large s,~ale site planning, mixing of buile~ing types or land uses, improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buildings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and structures. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements far Planned Unit Developments are set forth in Chapter 1 ~ of the Central Paint Municipal Cade, relating to General Regulations, 4f~ street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. PUBLIC C(~MMFI~ITS 1~ny person interestecT in comrr~entin~on the above-rncntionccT ]at~d use dccisi~7n may suh~~~it written comments up ur3ti] the close t~f the r~~eetin~; schc;tiulcci fc>r '[ ~~cstTt~y, t)cccl~~hc;r 5, 2{7f30. ~~ ~. ~~'I'IttCtl c'tlllltllCilt:; Illay be Serlt EC1 ii{lG`~itlt't' {)} €}lt' I11L'etllil~ €tl C{'[7tI'<I} }}(1t[I€ Clt}' ~ }:l}}. ~ Z:'> `.i{luth Sectlllcl Street. C~entl`Ei1 }'oillt, C)EZ tJ7'~f)?. Issues wlli~:ll Il~ay provide tllc: basis t~lr <ltl tl}l~rcal Clil the tll<itters sh<lll be raiscci price- to the expiration of the con~n~ellt period Ilotec~ above. t~Ily tcstiiilcl[ly ttt~d writteci ct~Ixll~tents ab<~ut tl~e decisions described above will need to be reltlte:d to the proposal alld should be stated clearly to the Planning Colrimissiotl. 4. Copies of all evidence relied upon. by the applicant are available for public review at City l-fall, l SS South Second Street, Central Point, ©regotl. Copies of the same are available at l S cents per page. 5. For additional information, the public nay contact the Planning Department at {S~l} 604- 3321 ext. 231. SUMMARY OF PR©CEDUR.C At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review the applications, technical staff reports, hear testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the application for the Planned Unit Development. Any testimony or written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may approve or deny the Planned Unit Development. City regulations provide that the Central Point City Council be informed about all Plannmg Commission decisions, i 55 .`~ic]r}tll 5cc~~ti{i `~trt'~t t t ~c~n€rEll 1'rrint, t)It ~175t}2 ~ (S~~ 17 {rt>rt- i 3:? I ! i~<sx { 5ff 3) {>(>.t_lr~~f~t ^, . ~ ~~ r~ i\ ~~ACt{t~]~N~ C Fin. dings Qate: November ~, 2444 To: Jirn 6ennett, Planning ©irector City of Central Paint Frarn: RE: Application for a Planned Unit Development, Applicant; Ctallas Page 940 W'rndemar drive Ashland, Oregon 97520 AMP 37-2W-'14-CA, Tax lots 590{}, 6040, and 2944 5W 'l., Section 14, Township 37 South, Range 2 West, Willamette Meridian Current Zane tistrict: R-1-'l4 Address: 3436 Hanley Road, Central Paint 1, RECIUEST Attached is the application for a planned unit development {PU10} for the above-cited units, and additional parking provision visitor vehicles an a 5.00 acre parcel fronting an Hanley Raad and accessible from Hanley Road. An existing home at 3436 Hanley Road will be remodeled and retained an a separate parcel and the existing buildings at 3386 Hanley Road will be removed. All l xhibits referenced in this application may be found in the Appendix. 2. AtlITH4lR;tTY The +r~tatioas below one from tfte Carttral Pplnt Municipal Code {CPMC}, wi#h Specific app~able Sec#ons noted. CPMC 17.24.4241ists as permitted uses within the R-9 zoning district the fallowing: A. Single- family dwelling, B. Public schools, parks and reCreatlan #ac~l~es, C. Churches and similar rel'€giaus ins~tutions; d. Parochial and private schools, but not including business, dancing, music, trade, technical or nursery schools, kindergartens or day nurseries; E. Developer's project and sales offices; F. Planned unit developmerrt; G. Residential homes; N. Single- family manufactured home; and, ~~ r. Residential facilities. CPMC 17.E13.342 defines a Planned Unit Qevelopment (PUD) as: " Planned unit of development (PUD} means the developmen# of an area of land as a whole for a number of dwelling units or a number of uses, according to a plan which does not correspond on fat size, bulk or type of dwelling density, lot coverage or required open space to fhe regulations otherwise required by this title. CPMC 17.68.(}1(} defines the purpose of a punned unit development, which is: "...To gain mare effective use of open space, realize advantages of large- scale site planning. Mixing of building types or land uses improved aesthetics and environmental preservation by allowing a variety of buifdings, structures, open spaces, allowable heights and setbacks of buildings and structures. A PUIJ should have a harmonious variety of uses, uGtilize file economy of shared services and facilities, and reduced municipal costs of operating and maintaining services while insuring substantial compliance with the district regulations and other provisions of this code," CPMC 17.68.02U defines the size of a PUD si#e. "A PUD shad be on a tract of land true acres or larger, except that a PUD may be on a tract of land of more than one acre but Tess than five acres if fhe planning commission frnds, upon a showing by the applicant, that a PUD is in the public interest because one or more of the following conditions exist: A. An unusual physical feature cif` importance to the people of the area or fhe cornmunify as a whole exists on the site, which can be consented and still leave the landowner equivalent use of fhe land by fhe use of planned unit develloprner~ B. The pmperfy or ifs r~eighborhocid has hisfiorlcai character or distinctive f~~#ures that are Important to fhe community and that could be protected or enhanced through use of a PUC?; C, The property is adjacen# to or in the immediate vicinity of a punned unit development of similar design as that prop+~sed and the developments would complement each other w'rfhout sign cant adverse impact on surrounding areas; And ©. The praperfy is of irregular shape, with unlimited access, or has unusual dimensions ar characteristics, which would make canventianal develapment unreasonably difficult. CPMC 17.68.040 lists the criteria to grant ar deny a PUD. 3 "7 ",.,To approve or deny a PUD, file planning commission shall frnd whether or nat the standards of #his chapter, including the following criteria are either met, can be mef by observance of conditisons, or are not applicable. A. That the deve€opmen# of a harmonious, integrated plan jus#ifies exceptions #o the normal requiremen#s of this tile; E. The prapasal will be consistent with fhe comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ord€nance and other applicable policies of the city; C, The location, size, design and operating charac#eristics of fhe PUD will have minima€ adverse impacf on the Livability, value or appropriate development of the surrounding area; D. That the proponents of fhe PUD have demonstrated that they are tinancially able #o carry out the proposed projee~, that they intend to start construction within six months of the final approval of fhe project and any necessary district changes, and infend to complete said construction within a reasonable time as determined by fhe commission; E. That traffic congestion will not likely be created by the proposed development or will be obviated by demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, internal traffic circulation and parking. 1=. That commercal development in a PUD is needed at fire proposed location to provide adequate commercial fatalities of the type proposed; G. That proposed industrial development w€li be efficient and well- organized with adequate provisions for railroad and truck atx;ess and necessary storage; H. The PU©preserves natural features such as streams and slaarelines, wooded cover and rYxagh terrain, ~` fti~ese one presen#, €. The PUD will be compatible with the surrounding area; J. The PUD wiEl reduce need for public facilities and services relative to other permitted uses for the Land." CPMC 17.Gt3.U130 lists exceptions to the zoning and subdivision titles for a PUD. "` The planning commission may allow exceptions within a PUD for dimensions, site coverage, yard spaces, structure heights, distances between structures, street widths or off-street parking and loading facilities differing from specific standards for the zoning district in which PUD is located. Exceptions shall be based upon the applicants demonstration that the objective of the zoning and subdivision #ities of this Cade will be achieved. ~~ A. When the spacing between main buildings is Less than the spacing which would be required between buildings developed under this chapter on separate parcels ou#side a PUD, other design features shat! provide lights ven#ilation and other characteristics equivalent to that obtained from the spacing standards. B. Buildings, off-street parking and Loading facilities open space, Landscaping and screening shall conform to the specific standards of the zoning district within fifty feet of the boundary Imes of the development. G. The planning commission may approve building heights greater than Chase authorized by the zoning district. D. The building coverage for arty PUD shall not exceed that which is permitted for Other conS#rUC#i4n in the zone. E. When a PUD design would require exceptions to the regulations of the subdivision title, the planning commission may grant those conditions as part of the PUD. Tentative approval of the preliminary development plan of a PUD shall also cons#ifute tentative approval of a #entative plan under chapter 16.10 if the ma#erials are presen#ed in the manner prescribed by subdivision title. 3. DESCRLPTIUN {)F THE PR4P4SED Pi..ANNED UNIT ©EVEL.C?PMENT The si#e proposed far this Planned Unit Development is located on the East Side of Hartley Road 300 fee# #01000 feet south of the junc#ure of Hanley Road and Pine Stree#. The property is a parallelogram measuting 1055 feet north-south and {}- 360 fee# deep from Hanley Road. Jackson Creek #raverses the property from ##~ southeast corner #o the narthwes# comer in a deep channel. Currenfiy, the property is partially developed with 2 h+x~ses. The remainder' of the praapertY is fenced for use as a pasture. Accaess is provided between the house, fronting on Hanley Road, east of the a eels, by a brkge. The home is a traditional stnrcture with a detached garage= landscaping and a parameter fence. It will be remodeled and included as a residence in the PUD. Access into the PUD site is provided by direc# fron#age on Hartley Road along the west. The access from Hanley Road will serve 21 dwellings and the recreation vehicle storage area. Due to the configuration of the site and the Location of the creek, the s#reet will be a private one way stree# with #urn around facilities at the south end and approximately 150 feet from the exit from the project. Paths within the open space and across the bridge wilt encourage pedestrian travel to and within the development. A dedicated open on fhe northwest side of the PUD will t}e enhanced by the additional space on site. This PUD proposes the following: 3~ Gonstructian of 21 single fatuity house style units similar in construction to Rosewood PHASE #. These units will be from 2600 to 4500 square feet with two or three car garages, franc and back yards. Conversion of an existing bridge {walking] wil# be converted into a covered bridge with benches. A swimming pool will be constructed in PHASE # an tat 14 or possibly on triangular lac, At northwest end of property. Extra guest parking w#1# be incorporated in this area also. The pool area will be within easy pedestrian access from all of the residences in the development and there are seven aft- street park#ng spaces to be developed nearby. • Gonstruction of-twy- foot {30} wide paved streets for vehicular access to the residences. `the streets wi## have ro##ed curbs for drainage control, to protect the edges of the asphalt concrete pavement, and far esthetics. An altered turnaround at the end of the access from Hanley Road will provide an area for off-street parking. Streets will be private. • Drainage from paved areas and roofs wil# be channeled to grassed retention areas, which w##I discharge through restricted orifice catch basins. The combination of flow through grass and retention will result in a clean, regu#ated discharge to Jackson Creek. • Recreation pool and open space is proposed to be in a fenced and screened area fronting on Manley Road between the road and the creek. The area will be partially graveled and partiaalty paved in order to provide far percolation of rain. A safety fence will be cx~nstavcted along both sides of Jackson Creek where open space occurs aad ff~e banks are steep. Access to the creek will be providEd behind each residEertce and at bridge and open space areas. Existing mature tress will be preserved. Brush along ~ tap of the creek banks will be cleaned of berry vines and thinned. Additional landscaping will enhance the development and provide an open-space appearance to the neighborhood. Water, sanitary sewer} power, natural gas, telephone and cable service will be provided to a## residences and the recreation renter. ~#. DEVEt..QPMENT CRITER#A A. That the development crf a harmonious, inteyrafed plan just~es exceplivns fo the no~'ma! requirements of Phis title. The proposed planned development will result in a close- knit neighborhood. The residences will be open- space oriented with ~~ pedestrian traffic encouraged by internal pathways and Private Street. The existing trees and creek bank areas will be retained and enhanced to provide views and access far the residents. A normal subdivision developmenf would result in lots having access off of Hanley Road. Access to the creek would be cart off and the camrnunity would lose even visual access to the open space, which should be retained along this natural corridor, The requested excep#ions to normal requirements relate to parcel size, street standardst and building set- backs. The retention of the unique ca-eek~side open space justi#ies the requested exceptions. ~. The proposal wilt be consistent with the comprehensive plan, the objectives of the zoning ordinance and other appl'€cabte policies of the city: The objectives of the comprehensive plan, the zoning ordinance and other planning policies of the city are to have residential development of medium density in the area of the project site, The proposed development meets the gross density limits for the R-1 Single Family Residential Zone of the City of Central Point. Th a additional uses of recreation ten#er and vehicle parking and back yard recreation facilities. C. The locafion, size, design, and operafr"ng characteristics of ffte P[1D wi11 have mr~aimal adverse impacf on the Ir`vabilify, value ar appropriate development of the surrounding area: The proposed development will have the same number of residents as would a normal development of approximately 5 l4 acres. This development will have greater setbacks from neighbors to the east and far less visual impact on the Hanley Road frontage. It is }orated in an area, which has been designated for residenbat development, and there is such development #o the east, Street stress will be limited to orxe arc~:ss fortwenty- one dwelling units to Hanley Road. The at~ual number of trips generated may be less than namal due to the existence of the rert~eation farllitles. D. That the proponents of the PUl3 have demonstrated that they are financially able fo carry out the proposed projecf, that They intend fo start constnrction wifhin sr"x months of the Erna! approval of the project and arty necessary district changes, and intend fo complete said construction within a reasonable tittle as determined ay the commission: The developer is able to t<nance the project and intends to begin constnacfion within six months of Ernst approval of the project by all agencies. Construction will be completed as expeditiously as possible. E. That traffic ccrngestian wi11 not likely be created by the proposed developmenf or will be obviafed fly demonstrable provisions in the plan for proper entrances, exits, infernal tratpc circcrlafion and parking: With access to the development limited to one ~~ bcatioe, traffic congestion wilt not likely !~ a problem, The greater traffic loading will be to Hanley Road with twenty-one dwellings generating approximately 260 trips per day. The limited number of trips accessing Nantey Road wit( result in a minima( Impact on this potentially heavily traveled route. The access to Nantey Road will be developed to assure greater sigh# distance to allow for higher speeds traveled on that road. tnternat vehicle circulation is limited to one way streets. Extra parking provided is provided of several sites and should result in a lack of need for parking to overflow the development during a social event. Pedestrian circulation wit( be emphasized by the construction of paths and other amenities, which encourage walking. F. That Commercial development in a PUU is needed of the proposal tocatiQn fo provide adequate commercial facilities of the type proposed: There is no commercial development proposed. G. That proposed industrial development will be elhcient and we11 organized with adequate provisions for railroad and tnrck access and necessary storage: There is no industrial devetopmen# proposed. H, The PUfl preserves natural features such as streams and shorelines, wooded saver and rough terrain, ifthese are present: The prominent natural feature on the property is the channel of Jackson Creek. The primary purpose of this planning unit devetopmen( is to establish single family residences on site white preserving the Jadsson Creek habitat and additional olaen space desired to provide access to the creels, Several large trees, whisk may have b+~en in that way of conventio~a! develiopment, will also be preserved. t. The PUfl wr7! be compatible witty the surrounding area: This being,residential development if wilt be txx»patible with other residential developments in the area. The differences in structure will be minimized by the visual separation of the development from the conventional dwellings fronting Brandon Street. .!. The PUD will reduce need far public faciir'fies and services relatrve to other permitted uses for the Iarxf: The on-site recreation facilities wilt reduce the need for residents to leave the site, Maintenance of the street will be provided by a homeowners association. The water system wilt be looped through the project to provide better service on- site and enhance the City"s d'€stribution system. Other facilities will be needed to approximately the same degree, as would be the case for a conventional subdivision having the saute number of dwelling units. ~~ Central Paint. Tie-ins to the existing county and/ar city infrastructure must be permitted and approved by Jackson County and the City of Central Point. fine permanent bench mark shall be installed by the developer's surveyor at a location established by the city Public Works Department. All streets within the proposed development are private streets. The Developer must comply with the recommendations of Fire District 3 for street width requirements. 2. Wafer: The Developer must comply with the recommendations of Fire District 3 The water line to be constructed along Rosebud Circle should be a 12-inch line and connect to the south end of the 12-Inch water line on Hanley Rd. It should also be connected to the 8-inch water line in Rosewood Estates, Phase 7 3. Sife Drainagel5torm Drain Plan: The developer shalC design and implement a site drainagelstorm drain plan that corrects andlar enhances existing site drainage for the entire area noted on the site plan. The storm drainage infrastructure is to be privately operated and maintained, a suitable system will need to be designed for a minimum i0-year storm event. If applicable, any storm water retention facilities shall be designed to mitigate erosion and sediment and hydrocarbon deposition; and to mitigate the "attractive nuisances hazards associated with these facilities. ~. Ex~isfing tnfrastrucfure: The Developer shall provide suitable engineering certification and justification (i,e. calculations, analy;~es, plots, etc.,} #hat all connections to existing infrastructure {i.e. street; drive-tfiru queuing; water, sanitary sewer, storm drain systems; natural drainage systems; etc.,} will not interfere with or provide for the significant degradation (in the opinion of the City of Central Paint} of the existing effective level of service or operation of the infrastructure facilities, and that the existing infrastructure facilities have either adequate capacities to accommodate the flows and/or demands imposed on the existing infrastructure as the result of the connection of the proposed developments infrastructure; or the existing facilities will be improved by and at the expense of the Developer to accommodate the additional flows and/or demands while maintaining or improving the existing effective level of service of the affected facility. General Development Plans: Developer shall submit to the City's PWD for review and approval, plans and specifications far all improvements proposed far construction ar modifications within the City or public rights-af- ~~ Rosewood Estates, ~'hase 1 PW©.S'taff Report November 28, 2QtX1 Page 3 way and easements or for connections to City infrastructure. Public improvements include, but are not limited to, streets {including sidewalks, curbs and gutters }; storm drainage and sanitary sewer collection and conveyance systems; water distribution system {up to the service meter); street lighting; and traffic control devices, street signs, and delineation. All construction of public improvements shall conform to the City's PWD Standards, the conditions approved and stipulated by the Planning Commission, and other special specifications, details, standards, andlor upgrades as may be approved by the City Administrator or his designee prior to the approval of the construction plans for the proposed development. During construction, changes proposed by the Developer shall be submitted in writing by the Developer's engineer to the City PWD for approval prior to installation. 2. Approvals: If applicable, Fire District No. 3 {fire hydrant placement, waterline sizing, and emergency vehicle access}, Bear Creek Valley Sanitary Authority {BCVSA, for sanitary sewers}, and written approval of construction plans shall be submitted to the City PWD prior to final construction plan review and approval by City PWD. Where applicable, the Developer must coordinate activities with all Federal, State, and 1_ocal agencies to insure that all appropriate permits are in place prior to construction. 8. As-Built drawings: Prior to approval and acceptance of the project, the Developer's engineer or surveyor shall provide the Public Works Department with `as-built" drawings. if feasible, the Developer's engineer or surveyor should provide the drawings in both a "hard copy" form {produced on Mylar"~ and in a "digital' format compatible with AutoCAD'~, or other form as approved by the City PWD. As-built drawings are to be provided to the City which provide "red-line# changes to final approved construction plans which identify the locations and or elevations {as appropriate} of actual installed items, 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. 4~ A'I('TAC"IIMr,N'I` ~~ RECOMMENDED PLANNING I)F,I'AI2`I'MI.NT CONBITIONS OF AI'PI20VAL 1. A Final development plan, containing in final form the information required in the preliminary plan shall be submitted to the City within six mouths of approval or by June S, 2~O1 A six month extension may be granted by the City upon the applicant's request and for good cause. 2. The project must comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations including, but riot limited to, the Oregon Uniform I~ire Code and Structural Specialty Code. 3. The applicant shall submit final parking, landscaping, lighting and sign plans to the City for approval as part of the final development plan. 4. The applicant shall submit a copy of the Covenants, Codes and Restrictions {CC&Rs) or any comparable agreement governing the use, maintenance and continued protection of the PUD as part of the final development plan. 5. Water service meters shall not be located within a sidewalk.. ~. Decks and fences may be allowed at the discretion of the Building {official and Public Worl~s Director in special setback areas. It is important that fences and decks along Jackson Creek receive particular attention since these structures could potentially impede the regular flow of water in the creek during a flood event. r ~-(/~_ ~ ~r~ !i~~`~`~ ~t ~s`t c"~ ~~1~~.: ~~'~~L..~.c r[ rf`l (ir~~'t~' uG> *`C" C".Ilf i ~ ~~ ~~ Rosewood E=states. Ph<zse t P74'L7 StafJ'ReRort November 28, lt7(1l) Page 4 ~. Fitl Placement All fill placed in the road right of way shall be engineered fill that is suitably placed and compacted in accordance with City PWD 6. Roads: The City shall evaluate the strength of the native soils and review the road section designs at the Developer's expense. roads should be designed to handle all expected loads, including fire equipment. 8. Utility Plaits: Prior to construction the developer must coordinate, with the City PWD, the placement of proposed utilities to avoid conflicts and insure adequate separation with all infrastructure. Utilities include, but are not limited to, electric power, cable television, natural gas, and telephone. 10. City Utility Easements: Easements must be provided for existing City infrastructure (i.e. sanitary sewer, water, and storm drain} and any of the City's infrastructure that is to be installed as part of this development. Easements must be a minimum of ~ 5-feet wide, and should not split lot lines. Easements for storm drainage, sanitary sewer, and water lines should be dedicated to the City and not just a public utilities easement (PUE}. Cen#erline of buried infrastructure shall be aligned a minimum cif dive (b} feet Nem the edge of the easement. PUEs must have a minimum 10-foot width. 19 . Clear Vsiart Areas: The construction drawings shall include clear vision areas (i.e. sight triangles} designed to meet the City`s PWD requirements. 12. Fire Hydrants: Provide locations of existing and any new required fire hydrants. All fire hydrants shall be suitably protected frorr~ potential vehicle damage and encroachrr~ent. ~} Rosewaoca' F`states, Phase t PF~'LJ Sta,J~f2eport November 28. 1{1~(J Page 5 14. Wafer System: 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. All water lines will be reinforced {looped) systems. 16. Storm Drain System Design: Prior to construction plan approval of the improvements for this development plan, the Developer's eng"rneer shall provide the City PWD with a complete set of hydrologic and hydraulic calculations and prole plots for sizing the site storm drain system, The engineer shall use the rainfalllintensity curve obtained from the City PWD for hydrologic calculations, and the negotiated run-off parameters. 18. Grading Plans: Construction plans should have a suitable grading plan. Grading plans should have originallexisting grades and final grades plotted on the plan. Typically, existing grade contour lines are dashed and screened back, and final grade contour lines are overlaid on top of the existing grades and are in a heavier line width and solid, Contour lines should be labeled with elevations. '19. Erosr`on Control Plan: A su"rtable erosion control plan must be prepared and submitted to the t3regon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ} for the construction of any improvements associated with this development. The construction plans associated with this development will not be approved by the City Public Works Department until the city receives a copy of the written approval of the erosion control plan from DEQ, ~~ FIRE DISTRICT No. 3 ~AC~csoc~ cou~TY &333 AGATE RQAD„ WHFT~ CTTI', C7REGC7N 97503-1075 (541) 826-71007 SAX X541) 826-4566 www~c~d3.corn November ~.I, 2QUt7 Ken Gerschler City of Central Point Punning Ez Development Dear Ken, The Fire District has reviewed the modified plans f©r Rosewood Estates punned unit Phase ~~ and I've marked the fire hydrant locations on the plat. The fire hydrant locations on Hanley Rd are also marked an the plat. The 3D' street width will allow for parking on one side only. If you have any questions, Please call me at 8~.&-7~.C1{~ Dan Hickman Deputy Fire Marshal ~JCFD3 ~. ~ BEAR ~R~~~C VAL~~Y SAt~~TA~Y AUT~i~:~T1~' 39i5 SOUTH PACKfC NYYY. • M!"171~ORD~ OREtSON ~~ut11•F099 ~ (lS41~ 1515-b193 • (3F4t} 77A-A444 TAX {5~4} 1f~3€-K776 • wwrr.ttewa.arq l~Iovember 27, 2{740 Ken Gerschler City of Central Paint Punning Department 1S5 South Second Street Central Point, Oregon 9'7542 Re: Rosewood Estates PUD, File #QQU23-PUD Dear Ken, "The sewer service fox the proposed development will be a public sewer system and must be designed and constructed in accordance with BCVSA and DEQ standards, Individual lot connections will require permits and payment of connection fees to BCVSA. We request that the City not issue building permits within the PUD until the sewer system has been completed and accepted by BCVSA. If yc~u need additie~nal information, please call me at 7'~9-A~144. Sincerely, f~~____._..._.._ Car Tappert, P.E. District Engineer 1.~I~ATA~AgenciestCENTPTII'LANNG100023-PUD_Rosewood Estates.wpd J C) E'LANNIN(i 1)T;PA12"C"Mi?N~' S`~'~-Iii{ 12Et'()li`1' l~ll?AR.1ttilC~ DATE: Decc;n~ber 5, 20t)t) TD; Central Point Planning Co~~zmission FROM; Toth Humphrey AICP, Planning Director SUBJECT: Public Hearing to review the Twin Creeks Master Develop3tte;nt Plan fora 234 acre parcel of land contained within the Central Point UGf3. Background The City Council is in the process ofreviewing and adopting a Comprehensive Flan amendment, new zoning and design and construction criteria that apply to this master plan application. The Planning Commission is being asked to review the master plan in light of the new standards and criteria and make a recommendation to the City Council. Diiscussion A copy ofAttachment A was distributed to the Planning Commission last week to allow you more time to review the project. The Commission should also have copies oFAttachment B which are the zoning and design criteria by which the master plan should be measured. Since the Comprehensive Plan and zoning materials have been prepared in conjunction with those for the master plan, staff has not found any inconsistencies between the two. The Commission is invited to compare the zoning and design criteria with the uses being proposed in the master plan. if you determine that the draft master plan is consistent with the new Comp Plan and zoning, You may make a positive recommendation to the City Council who will consider the master plan in conjunction with their decision to annex the property to the City of Central Point. The Planning Commission would then receive and review individual development phases within the master plan area. Recorcazxtendatiion Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take one of the Following actions: l .Adopt Resolution No. ~, recommending approval of the master development plan to the City Council subject to the recommended conditions of approval; or 2. Continue the review of the master development plan at the discretion of the Commission. Attachments A. Twin Creeks Transit-Oriented Development Plan Draft, dated November 15, 2040 13. Central Point TC}D Design Rec~uirc:t~tents and C~;uidelines C. T~lotice of Public 1-]caring ~J ~. r BEN r,~~ ~1 ~ (~..~ {... x=.'12 ~ 1.`"'C`~ 1 ~'C~ 1 ~1 ~ ~ -, ! ~ ~'~ .... G`~-ti t:~ ~ ~~ .~:` ~~z~ ,~ PLANNIN~y I~L~'~A.~'~'.~Lf~~'NI' ~~ `['orr~ E~umPhrcy, AICI' G~~GflCl i'lanning I~irc}ctor Ken Gerschlor Community Planner Matt ~arxtitore Planning Technician Notice of ~~Ieeting Date of Notice: November 15 , 2040 Meeting Date: Time: Place: NATURE OF MEETING December 5, 2f}~0 7.{~0 p,m. (Approximate) Central Point City Hall 15S South Second Street Central Point, Oregon Beginning at the above time and place, the Central Point Planning Commission will review the master plan for the proposed Transit Oriented Development (TOD) area located north of Taylor Road, east of Grant Road and west of U,S,Plighway 99. A Master Plan is a document that demonstrates what a particular area will look like once development is complete with explicit detail addressing the location ofwater, sewer, and electrical service in addition to street location and design. Particular attention is given to parks, open space, potential school siting, civic uses and building design for the various uses that will encompass the TOD area. At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review all of the documentation enclosed within the master plan and at their discretion make a recommendation to the Central Point City Council. CRITERIA FOR DECISION The requirements for Master Plans include the components of Land Partitions and Site Plan Review which are set forth in Chapters 16 and 17 of the Central Point Municipal Code, relating to General Regulations, Off street parking, Site Plan, Landscaping and Construction Plans. The proposed plan is also reviewed in accordance to the City's Public Works Standards. J~ . l=`iJBLIC CflMMEl~I`I"~ 1. Any person interested in commenting an the above-n~entianed land use recommendation znay submit written comments up until tl~e claw ofthe z77eeting scheduled tar "1"uesday, December 5, 20(}fl. 2. Written comments may be sent in advance of the meeting to Central Point City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Paint, Old. 975fl2. 3, Issues which may provide the basis for an appeal on the matters shall be raised prior to the expiration of the comment period Hated 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 Corrtmission. 4. Copies of these applications are available far public review at City Hall, 155 South Second Street, Central Paint, C~regan. Copies of the same are available at 25 cents per page. 5. Far additional information, the public may contact the Planning Department at (541 } 664- 3321 ext. 291. SUMMARY t~F PRC}CEI}URE At the meeting, the Planning Commission will review technical staff reports, read testimony from the applicant, proponents, opponents, and hear arguments on the master plan. Any written comments must be related to the criteria set forth above. At the conclusion of the review the Planning Commission may make a recommendation to the City Council. ~~ 15.5 South 5ecaiad Street ~ Ccr~tral 1'oznt, C)P ~~25t}2 i {541) Cif~4-3321 • lax: {54 ] } (~a4-f~384